U.S. Immigration
St.George
In fact, though, according to author Bill Bryson, the percentage of the U.S.
population that is foreign-born is just 6%.
This compares with 8% in the UK, and 11% in France.
Furthermore, with a geographical area of forty-odd times that of the UK, it
is farcical to claim that the US is 'getting overcrowded'. In fact, the UK
has TEN times as many immigrants per square mile as the U.S. does.
So the question is why are they not running murderously riot, as supposedly
are their American contemporaries?
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <god_save_t...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a9p6ts$t2k$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Many Americans blame the sky-high murder rate on immigrants.
>
> In fact, though, according to author Bill Bryson, the percentage of the U.S.
> population that is foreign-born is just 6%.
>
That would be nice if that number had an REAL validity. See --
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-206.pdf
Page 9 of that U.S. Census document shows that in March
2000, there were an estimated 28.4 million foreign-born in the
U.S. That is 10.4% of the U.S. population.
Further, page 10 of that document shows that another
10% are of first-generation foreign stock. Making 55.9
million of the U.S. population of such foreign stock.
Fully 1 out of 5, have roots no further back than their
parent/parents.
> This compares with 8% in the UK, and 11% in France.
>
One wonders what the further percentage population is of
those countries who consist of only one generation native
born. You can draw your own conclusions.. I have drawn
mine. But please, don't depend on 'author' Bill Bryson.
> Furthermore, with a geographical area of forty-odd times that of the UK, it
> is farcical to claim that the US is 'getting overcrowded'. In fact, the UK
> has TEN times as many immigrants per square mile as the U.S. does.
>
I certainly have not seen anyone here blaming the sky-high
murder rate on immigrants. There is, of course, a higher murder
rate among Blacks, compared to Whites, but I do not believe
those Blacks who are foreign-born commit murders at a higher
rate than native-born Blacks. And the reasons for that
anomaly do not lie within the DP.
> So the question is why are they not running murderously riot, as supposedly
> are their American contemporaries?
>
Because both your 'data' and your 'conclusions' are false, perhaps???
PV
A Planet Visitor
typing skills of posters.
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:upWv8.7236$nc.16...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "St.George" <god_save_t...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a9p6ts$t2k$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
<clipped>
> That would be nice if that number had an REAL validity. See --
> http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-206.pdf
> Page 9 of that U.S. Census document shows that in March
> 2000, there were an estimated 28.4 million foreign-born in the
> U.S. That is 10.4% of the U.S. population.
<rest clipped>
PV
Richard Jackson
The use of violence by any one immigrant group depends upon where the
group is from and the traditions of their culture. The largest
immigrant group by far in the US is Hispanic, most of whom are Mexican
in origin. Many Mexicans who enter from the border areas into the
states are third generation gang bangers. Around here, the Latin
Kings are the dominate group, a few miles down the road, another group
has turf. This occasionally causes violence, and since a good number
of the members are immigrants, all immigrants from Mexico are looked
at with a jaunticed eye by other ethnitic groups.
--
Richard Jackson
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"St.George" <god_save_t...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:a9p6ts$t2k$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Many Americans blame the sky-high murder rate on immigrants.
>>
>> In fact, though, according to author Bill Bryson, the percentage of the U.S.
>> population that is foreign-born is just 6%.
>>
>
>That would be nice if that number had an REAL validity.
<goes on to moan about too many filthy foreigners>
Why would it be 'nice' if there were fewer immigrants in the US, PV?
You evil racist.
<KKK rant censored>
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.o...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
news:r061cuc7mnj571snk...@4ax.com...
nice) if it were TRUE. Being that it isn't.. it is NOT NICE to
distort. But of course, you certainly would not agree with
that. Being that ALL your arguments are based on distortion,
opposite man, that wouldn't leave you anything but obscenity.
Has your rump healed sufficiently since the thorough spanking
I provided in a number of posts a few days ago???
PV
> <KKK rant censored>
>
> w00f
>
>
Steve Towne
"dirtdog" <dog.o...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
news:r061cuc7mnj571snk...@4ax.com...
immigrant statistic and to state that African Americans commit murder at a
higher rate than the rest of the population. He cited a source for his
disagreement with the immigrant statistic and I'll be happy to provide you
with one for the murder rate. Go to http://www.fbi.gov and you'll find that
blacks commit 54% of the murders in the US. They comprise 13% of the
population. Without making a 'racist rant' I find this disturbing. I wish
it were otherwise.
I'm usually entertained by the manner in which you needle people but this
one falls short of your usual standard. Please try to do better.
Mark Andrew Spence
sky-high murder rate. The US murder rate is higher than other developed
nations, but has been declining for the last 8 or 10 years.
M.S.
"St.George" <god_save_t...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a9p6ts$t2k$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Many Americans blame the sky-high murder rate . . . .
A Planet Visitor
" Steve Towne" <cmp...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:zh5w8.43675$ia.25...@news2.west.cox.net...
dirt is tilting at windmills again. Hoping to cover up his own
past behavior in matters racial. Usually when the rant is
'Those filthy immigrants commit all the crime,' it is grounded
in racism. I hoped to put that into the perspective that we
cannot blame crime on immigrants of any color. One
cannot deny the factually obvious, but that does not imply
racism. I certainly have, over and over, on numerous occasions
clearly stated that Blacks are VICTIMS....victims of a deep
racial prejudice and a disenfranchisement which creates an
atmosphere of hopelessness, despair, and feeds off itself in
finding a fertile environment for responding in anger. This
clearly shows up in the statistics comparing Black on Black
murders compared to Black on White murders. In the data for
2000, Black on Black murders numbered 2,723, while Black on
White murders numbered 417.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/00crime2_3.pdf
In fact, the data shows that Whites are more of a sexual
predator nature, than Blacks, with Blacks committing 31.9%
of all their murders on females, while Whites commit 53.7%
of all their murders on females.
With Blacks having been disenfranchised and left powerless,
usually in poverty and despair, we find there is a momentum
built up leading to a perception that there is a 'right' to react
aggressively to obtain that which has otherwise been taken
from them. A 'right,' outside of the law, which is now seen as
part of the PROBLEM, rather than any part of the solution.
Hiding our heads in the sand, ignoring this phenomenon, will
not SOLVE this problem. It is a problem of the 'WHITE MAN'S'
making. When we can truly solve this problem of
disenfranchisement and both subtle and not-so-subtle prejudice
against those of another color, the problem of violence will
solve itself in the process. I do not have the statistics, but
I would venture a guess that Whites not in poverty and
despair, commit violent acts at a comparable degree to those
Blacks, if they are not in poverty and despair. And if that is the
case, can we say Blacks are in poverty and despair of their
OWN choosing, or have we been responsible for holding
them in poverty and despair?
Of course, NO ONE can EXCUSE a reaction which holds
with violence as a solution using such reasoning. One cannot
excuse a terrorist, who murders innocent civilians, for example,
for ANY reason. We cannot adjust LAW, to excuse one particular
grouping of humans for committing acts of violence. Thus,
if we really intend to do something about it, it must be attacked
at its ROOTS, and not some absurd belief that we should provide
lesser punishment for murders committed by those we have
disenfranchised, hoping those murders will somehow disappear
if we excuse them. Believing we can then continue to disenfranchise,
discriminate and leave them powerless.
It's unfortunate that dirt has failed to recognize the significance
of this problem. IMHO, when looked at in the larger picture, it is
obvious that dirt is the TRUE racist. Ignoring the larger
implication, and believing that it is 'racist' to present facts,
and examine the larger implication of those facts. With a
view toward SOLVING problems rather than ignoring them.
dirt would much rather sling insults (not just in this case, but
in EVERY case), since, IMHO, he is a sour, spiteful, bitter, morose,
sullen, vulgar, mentally shriveled-up excuse for a human....which
fits the profile of how we usually see one who is a true racist.
I leave that to the 'eye-of-the-beholder' to examine, by looking
at the tenor of ALL dirt's posts.
PV
St.George
"Mark Andrew Spence" <m1sp...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:a9qr5c$crs$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> News flash for those whose IQ equal or exceed 200: The US does not have a
> sky-high murder rate. The US murder rate is higher than other developed
> nations, but has been declining for the last 8 or 10 years.
Que?
Just because the murder rate was positively stratospheric a decade or so ago
does not mean that it is not still sky-high today.
Further, it isn't just 'higher' than comparable industrialised democracies -
it is w-a-y higher, and you know it!
G7 homicide rates from
http://www.guntruths.com/Guest%20Correspondent/america_most_violent.htm.
Slightly outdated I know, but serves to illustrate the point admirably
Canada 1.7
France 1.1
Germany 1.1
Italy 1.7
Japan 0.6
U.S. 9.4
U.K. 0.9
These figures, albeit from 1996, show a U.S. murder rate nearly SIX times
higher than the second highest amongst G7 nations. This multiple has not
declined very significantly since then....
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrnac33qn.19qh....@lievre.voute.net...
> Le Sat, 20 Apr 2002 15:45:55 +0100, St.George
<god_save_t...@yahoo.co.uk> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > Canada 1.7
> > France 1.1
> > Germany 1.1
> > Italy 1.7
> > Japan 0.6
> > U.S. 9.4
> > U.K. 0.9
> >
> > These figures, albeit from 1996, show a U.S. murder rate nearly SIX times
> > higher than the second highest amongst G7 nations. This multiple has not
> > declined very significantly since then....
>
> then, unless I'm mistaken. The UK now has a higher murder rate than
> France, albeit not by much.
>
While Japan... still holding fast to the DP, is the lowest of
the low. Does that tell you that the DP has nothing to do
the murder rate? Or are you determined to be blind to that
fact? Argue all you wish that the U.S. is a violent society.
I will agree with that analysis. Nonetheless, trying to
connect the homicide rate to being CAUSED by the DP
is logically absurd... and you KNOW IT.
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |DP SUPPORTER #1
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:NZew8.12889$nc.32...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "
snipped
>
> dirt is tilting at windmills again. Hoping to cover up his own
> past behavior in matters racial. Usually when the rant is
> 'Those filthy immigrants commit all the crime,' it is grounded
> in racism. I hoped to put that into the perspective that we
> cannot blame crime on immigrants of any color. One
> cannot deny the factually obvious, but that does not imply
> racism. I certainly have, over and over, on numerous occasions
> clearly stated that Blacks are VICTIMS....victims of a deep
> racial prejudice and a disenfranchisement which creates an
> atmosphere of hopelessness, despair, and feeds off itself in
> finding a fertile environment for responding in anger.
Snipped excellent post.
You know, of course, how much I agree with you and
how I think you are the best exponent of such views.
You have not, however, expounded them "on numerous
occcasions" which has mildly annoyed me especially when
doggie and others have accused you of either racialist
or racist views. But then again why should you? Bennie
asked me to again expound my pragmatic arguments
against the DP which I have posted many more times
than your views on blacks. The fact is that one gets
bored with one's own opinions. I consider Doggie, Mark
and Earl have all at one time or another, inadvertantly perhaps,
allowed themselves to express either racist views or
expressions. The reason why they have done this -
insensitivity, pure ignorance or both. Richard has also
fallen into this trap but is far less defensive than the other
three. He really does believe that it's all a matter of
blacks rejecting the idle life and pulling themselves together.
Again it's his lack of imagination that lets him down.
John Rennie
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrnac33qn.19qh....@lievre.voute.net...
> Le Sat, 20 Apr 2002 15:45:55 +0100, St.George
<god_save_t...@yahoo.co.uk> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > France 1.1
> > Germany 1.1
> > Italy 1.7
> > Japan 0.6
> > U.S. 9.4
> > U.K. 0.9
> >
> > These figures, albeit from 1996, show a U.S. murder rate nearly SIX
times
> > higher than the second highest amongst G7 nations. This multiple has
not
> > declined very significantly since then....
>
> then, unless I'm mistaken. The UK now has a higher murder rate than
> France, albeit not by much.
>
> Desmond Coughlan
Do you have the figures, Desmond? BTW the UK figures always have to include
Scotland. Deduct that portion of the UK and the rate halves. Something
to do with Scots not being able to take their drink.
dirtdog
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<beautiful guppy impression towards blatant troll snipped>
Has your rump healed sufficiently since the
> thorough spanking I provided in a number of posts a few days ago??? PV
>
And what would that be with regard to? Your claim that mitigating
circumstances serve to reduce the level of an offence?
Pull the fucking other one.
w00f
dirtdog
Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
John, you're so fucking clueless of late.
Neither myself nor (so far as I am aware) St George have expressed racist
'views' at any time.
Both of us, however, have used terms which you consider to be racist,
even in isolation from their true context.
However, so have you. You have also indulged in jingoistic nonsense and
used terms which are derogatory towards certain faiths (and I remind you
that religious intolerance has probably been responsible for far more
injustice and suffering than 'racism').
Perhaps, when you have pulled your head out from its present location
somewhere up your arsehole, you might like to justify or distinguish why
your 'sins' are less heinous than mine or St George's.
(BTW, just saying "I'm older so I know best and I've travelled a lot too"
like you did last time just will not do, I'm afraid)
w00f
dirtdog
<cmp...@cox.net> wrote:
<troll (which worked a treat) snipped>
>>
> Uh, Dog. The only comments PV made(that you snipped)
Erm, Steve. You might like to check out mine and PV's posting history
between one another for the past year.
You'd be best off giving yourself a week or so.
<clueless dribbling snipped>
w00f
dirtdog
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
Quite patently it is not absurd, PV.
As I have already pointed out, the DP helps to underpin your nation's
culture of revenge which serves to perpetuate your hideously violent
society.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.te...@w00f.cxm> wrote in message
news:20020420.202431...@w00f.cxm...
> In article <zh5w8.43675$ia.25...@news2.west.cox.net>, " Steve Towne"
> <cmp...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> <troll (which worked a treat) snipped>
ROTFLMAO. You still have not gained the insight to
recognize what is a 'troll' and what is just plain stupidity.
You presume you post a 'troll' and in the process show
how ignorant you are.
> > Uh, Dog. The only comments PV made(that you snipped)
>
> Erm, Steve. You might like to check out mine and PV's posting history
> between one another for the past year.
>
Why would you suggest that? Are you trying to look even
MORE silly, after having shown how silly you can be here?
<pathetic whining clipped>
For more pathetic whining from dirt, consult his reply to
Rennie. It's a gem of such whining.
PV
> w00f
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.te...@w00f.cxm> wrote in message
a very great number. Seems that I provided about six or
seven legal references to the fact that mitigating circumstances
can act to reduce the level of the offense for which charged.
How about the Texas criminal code. See -
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe001200.html#pe001.12.01
§ 12.44. Reduction of State Jail Felony Punishment to Misdemeanor Punishment
(a) A court may punish a defendant who is convicted of a state
jail felony by imposing the confinement permissible as punishment
for a Class A misdemeanor if, after considering the gravity and
circumstances of the felony committed and the history, character,
and rehabilitative needs of the defendant, the court finds that
such punishment would best serve the ends of justice.
(b) When a court is authorized to impose punishment for a lesser
category of offense as provided in Subsection (a), the court may
authorize the prosecuting attorney to prosecute initially for the
lesser category of offense.
> Pull the ****ing other one.
>
Quite the reasoned rebuttal, dirt. You certainly do have this
masochistic streak in you.
PV
> w00f
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.te...@w00f.cxm> wrote in message
objection to the FACTS, demonstrates that you have
your head in the sand -- which is part of the problem of
those who would perpetuate violence. Finding all the
WRONG reasons for its existence. If anything, it is
YOUR attitude that perpetuates violence. An unreasoned
approach to a complex problem, not having its roots in
the DP. Your rant simply points out how a hysterical
hate for the DP, or in your case, the U.S., can cloud
the judgment as to totally disconnected aspects existing
within the U.S. Your hate for the DP, and all things U.S.
notwithstanding, you cannot change the fact that
eliminating the DP will in no way affect violence.
If the DP IS responsible for violence, then how do you
explain Japan? Something you seem to have just ignored
in your typical rant.
PV
> w00f
>
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Bahw8.7484$DZ2.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
LOL.
PV
>
St.George
Pure insensitivity, John.
Insensitivity, that is, to the opinions of the slavishly politically correct
who just cannot - or will not - see the obvious and manifold difference
between the use of a certain word, or term, in isolation, and the exposition
of _actual_ racialist sentiments or views.
It is because I consider my thinking 'post-racialist' that I use terms like
'jigaboo' with impunity. It is only those who are either racialist, or live
in fear that they will be viewed as such, who consider the use of such
'insensitive' words as synonomous with certain idiotic broader sentiments.
For my part, racialism (by which I mean the discrimination against or
denigration of individuals based on skin colour alone) is so utterly foolish
a practice as to simply not merit any consideration whatsoever. The
delicate sensibilities of you and others, therefore, will not be near enough
to cause any verbal or behavioural modification on my part.
You must surely see that when I call dirtdog a 'jigaboo', and he calls me a
'honkey', these are nothing but jocular words - they carry no hostile
sentiment whatsoever and are (and will continue to be) used with abandon,
impunity, and gross insensitivity to silly old sods like you and PV :-)
John Rennie
From: "dirtdog" <dog.of.te...@w00f.cxm>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: U.S. Immigration
> In article <z4hw8.7454$DZ2.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "John
> Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> John, you're so fucking clueless of late.
>
> Neither myself nor (so far as I am aware) St George have expressed racist
> 'views' at any time.
>
> Both of us, however, have used terms which you consider to be racist,
> even in isolation from their true context.
>
> However, so have you. You have also indulged in jingoistic nonsense and
> used terms which are derogatory towards certain faiths (and I remind you
> that religious intolerance has probably been responsible for far more
> injustice and suffering than 'racism').
>
> Perhaps, when you have pulled your head out from its present location
> somewhere up your arsehole, you might like to justify or distinguish why
> your 'sins' are less heinous than mine or St George's.
>
> (BTW, just saying "I'm older so I know best and I've travelled a lot too"
> like you did last time just will not do, I'm afraid)
>
> w00f
Before I plonk your new address I note that you have placed bracketed a
wholly fictitious remark with apostrophes. This then is a lie, you often
lie and
the person you lie most to is yourself. I mentioned 'abos'
in particular thread. In the same thread I remarked to Mr D that abo was
a short form of aboriginal which I happen to regard as a truly disgusting
word because it means 'before orginal' which in my view attempts to strip
the indigeous populations of Australia and North America. Europe and Russia
of
humanity but of course you didn't see that. As for 'papist' I cannot
remember typing that word but I will accept that I did and did not
recognise that it was regarded as insulting.
Steve Towne
"dirtdog" <dog.of.te...@w00f.cxm> wrote in message
That's not necessary. I've followed this group since November of last year
and have read nearly everything each of you has written along with the other
regulars here. As I said before, if you're going to write nonsense at least
try to make it clever and entertaining. It appears that you're slipping.
Do you fell well? Your posts used to have a certain edge. I'm serious.
Perhaps you should give yourself a week or so off. Didn't you suggest that
in another post? Heed thy own advice.
Steve
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:z4hw8.7454$DZ2.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> news:NZew8.12889$nc.32...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "
>
> snipped
> >
> > dirt is tilting at windmills again. Hoping to cover up his own
> > past behavior in matters racial. Usually when the rant is
> > 'Those filthy immigrants commit all the crime,' it is grounded
> > in racism. I hoped to put that into the perspective that we
> > cannot blame crime on immigrants of any color. One
> > cannot deny the factually obvious, but that does not imply
> > racism. I certainly have, over and over, on numerous occasions
> > clearly stated that Blacks are VICTIMS....victims of a deep
> > racial prejudice and a disenfranchisement which creates an
> > atmosphere of hopelessness, despair, and feeds off itself in
> > finding a fertile environment for responding in anger.
>
> Snipped excellent post.
>
> You know, of course, how much I agree with you and
> how I think you are the best exponent of such views.
> You have not, however, expounded them "on numerous
> occcasions" which has mildly annoyed me especially when
> doggie and others have accused you of either racialist
> or racist views.
Well, thanks for the compliment on the post. But I hardly
think that 45 mentions, in 21 separate threads, where I
SPECIFICALLY use the word 'disenfranchisement' can
hardly be seen as only mentioning it infrequently. You
will find that to be the case, if you search on my handle
and that word in google. I don't really care if racists call
me a racist. It's obviously used as defense for their own
racism. Clearly, when I first recognized dirt for his racism,
with specific recognition of his comments, he referred to
me as 'david' for so doing. If you are unaware, he was
referring to David Duke, a rather rabid racist in U.S.
racist circles. Obviously, dirt did so using no other reason
than that I had found HIM to be racist. It's a typical defense
maneuver. When found out, begin pointing fingers at others.
> But then again why should you? Bennie
> asked me to again expound my pragmatic arguments
> against the DP which I have posted many more times
> than your views on blacks. The fact is that one gets
> bored with one's own opinions. I consider Doggie, Mark
> and Earl have all at one time or another, inadvertantly perhaps,
> allowed themselves to express either racist views or
> expressions. The reason why they have done this -
> insensitivity, pure ignorance or both.
IMHO --
Earl -- ignorance (out of touch with today)
Mark -- insensitivity (in touch with today - but not caring)
dirt -- Both (out of touch and not caring)
Perhaps I should hold Mark MORE responsible since he
KNOWS better. But somehow I perceive he is doing what
Earl often claims -- 'Intellectual goosing.' Not that I find
it any less disgusting when he does. While I see Earl
as naive, still in his bedroom slippers from 1950, and dirt
as just 'evil.'
> Richard has also
> fallen into this trap but is far less defensive than the other
> three. He really does believe that it's all a matter of
> blacks rejecting the idle life and pulling themselves together.
> Again it's his lack of imagination that lets him down.
>
Without getting into that -- when one is faced with a life
of poverty and despair - hopelessness, rather than laziness
is the frequent result.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.te...@w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>
> Neither myself nor (so far as I am aware) St George have expressed racist
> 'views' at any time.
>
> Both of us, however, have used terms which you consider to be racist,
> even in isolation from their true context.
>
> However, so have you. You have also indulged in jingoistic nonsense and
> used terms which are derogatory towards certain faiths (and I remind you
> that religious intolerance has probably been responsible for far more
> injustice and suffering than 'racism').
>
> Perhaps, when you have pulled your head out from its present location
> somewhere up your arsehole, you might like to justify or distinguish why
> your 'sins' are less heinous than mine or St George's.
>
> (BTW, just saying "I'm older so I know best and I've travelled a lot too"
> like you did last time just will not do, I'm afraid)
>
> w00f
>
and rave to the contrary, you've again been shown to 'care'
which makes you a 'loser' by definition.
It's hilarious to watch you do your 'death spiral' every time
someone comments that you've made some idiotic comment
in the past. Even when John does it, using a very passive
content. You must be getting very dizzy about now.
PV
A Planet Visitor
I would hope that you receive or might soon receive the
U.S. Series 'Boston Public.' See --
http://www.fox.com/bostonpublic/homeroom/
and see for the specific episode --
http://www.fox.com/bostonpublic/class_schedule/episode_215.htm
That particular episode addresses directly one of the racist words,
the 'N' word, which is seen as 'less offensive' (if there is such
a thing) than the word both you and dirt toss about with racist
abandon. And it shows that your argument falls flat on it
racist face. The perception that racism is SO BAD,
that making a racist statement merits no consideration,
positing that it is foolish to even consider such an act as
racist in practice, is the most naive, ill-conceived, irresponsible
and harmful argument you could mount.
And that's not an opinion.. That's fact. You two are totally
CLUELESS as to what racism ACTUALLY is. It's not all
about tying a Black to the fender of your truck and driving
until he is dead. Nor is it about 'delicate sensibilities' over
the use of certain words. Tell me, it you said 'subhuman'
when you spoke of a Black, would you consider THAT a
racist remark? Understand that is your implication when
you use the particular word you use. It is no less demeaning
than using the other word. The 'words' themselves are not
the issues. It's about a MIND-SET. And what the 'words'
speak to that mind-set. And you two certainly show such
a mind-set.
PV
A Planet Visitor
regarding 'Boston Public,' you will also find a very
detailed discussion on language in respect to the
'N' word and the episode I spoke of. Because the
episode generated so much interest. A discussion
held by Dr. Darnell M. Hunt and Lecia J. Brooks. See --
http://www.fox.com/bostonpublic/chat/chat_n.htm
PV
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:7Kpw8.17273$nc.42...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> "Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
> news:slrnac33qn.19qh....@lievre.voute.net...
> > Le Sat, 20 Apr 2002 15:45:55 +0100, St.George
> <god_save_t...@yahoo.co.uk> a écrit :
> >
> > { snip }
> >
> > > Canada 1.7
> > > France 1.1
> > > Germany 1.1
> > > Italy 1.7
> > > Japan 0.6
> > > U.S. 9.4
> > > U.K. 0.9
> > >
> > > These figures, albeit from 1996, show a U.S. murder rate nearly SIX
> > > times
> > > higher than the second highest amongst G7 nations. This multiple has
> > > not
> > > declined very significantly since then....
> >
> > The relationship between France and the UK (ahem ...) has changed since
> > then, unless I'm mistaken. The UK now has a higher murder rate than
> > France, albeit not by much.
> >
> While Japan... still holding fast to the DP, is the lowest of
> the low. Does that tell you that the DP has nothing to do
> the murder rate?
That tells me precisely that the DP has nothing to do with the murder
rate. Is that not all the more reason to abolish it as it appears to
serve no purpose?
> Or are you determined to be blind to that
> fact? Argue all you wish that the U.S. is a violent society.
> I will agree with that analysis. Nonetheless, trying to
> connect the homicide rate to being CAUSED by the DP
> is logically absurd... and you KNOW IT.
But haven't you painted yourself into a rather small corner, here?
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be. ((o))
So I became a complete bastard." ((O))
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
Oh dear. You are _really_ clueless.
Notice that even in the pissy little provincial code you manage to
quote after many hours of searching Google, you're still way off mark.
Now paragraph (a) is quite patently a rule that mitigating
circumstances can reduce the level of punishment imposed for an
offence. A person _convicted_ of a felony can be _punished_ at the
level of a misdemeanor if circumstances warrant it.
Notive that the class of _actual_ offence remains the same, a person
is convicted of a felony, but their punishment is reduced.
Paragraph (b) is simply a procedural provision which allows for your
prosecutors to prosecute for the lesser offence if they wish to. This
is thier choice and the level of the offence is still not degraded -
it simply allows for discretion. Notice the word _authorised_.
This is really nothing ground breaking, PV. Prosecutorial discretion
is quite an old concept.
Ho hum. It's like trying to argue with a spastic.
w00f
dirtdog
wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.te...@w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:20020420.202431...@w00f.cxm...
>> In article <zh5w8.43675$ia.25...@news2.west.cox.net>, " Steve Towne"
>> <cmp...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> <troll (which worked a treat) snipped>
>> >>
>> > Uh, Dog. The only comments PV made(that you snipped)
>>
>> Erm, Steve. You might like to check out mine and PV's posting history
>> between one another for the past year.
>>
>> You'd be best off giving yourself a week or so.
>>
>> <clueless dribbling snipped>
>>
>> w00f
>
>That's not necessary. I've followed this group since November of last year
>and have read nearly everything each of you has written along with the other
>regulars here. As I said before, if you're going to write nonsense at least
>try to make it clever and entertaining.
'fraid I'm not here to entertain you. Just myself. I am a sad
indictment of selfish modern capitalist society.
> It appears that you're slipping.
>Do you fell well? Your posts used to have a certain edge. I'm serious.
>Perhaps you should give yourself a week or so off. Didn't you suggest that
>in another post? Heed thy own advice.
>Steve
Now now, Stevie. There's no need to feel bitter just because you feel
for a blatant troll just as PV regularly does.
Had you followed the group to the extent you claim, you would quite
patently realise that I have posted on many occasions concerning the
fact that the rate of offending amongst blacks is undeniably higher.
PV is a regular deceptive snip artist, and giving him some of his own
treatment is no more than he deserves.
As an aside, isn't it astounding how people who 'previously found me
entertaining' suddenly decide that I'm slipping as soon as I call them
a cunt?
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
I have read through your post again, PV and can see no FACTS
whatsoever. Just opinion. Perhaps you might like to explain yourself?
<snipped>
> If anything, it is
>YOUR attitude that perpetuates violence.
Now I have seen it all.
Send for the men in white coats.
> An unreasoned
>approach to a complex problem, not having its roots in
>the DP.
Silly me.
Here I am talking of a subtle combination of sociological, economic
and cultural factors causing your country's circle of violence,
possibly including even the method you employ to purportedly combat
this problem. How very simplistic of me.
It would be much more intelligent to rant about EVIL murderers and
claim that the only way to show people that murder is wrong is to
execute those found guilty of it.
<snipped>
>
>If the DP IS responsible for violence, then how do you
>explain Japan? Something you seem to have just ignored
>in your typical rant.
PV, do you ever read anything, or do you simply not understand?
I have not said that the DP is solely responsible for violence, as
much as you would like me to have done as such. I state that it may be
_one_ factor contributing to your country's culture of revenge and
retribution.
As for Japan, you are perfectly aware that their society is very
disciplined and orderly - which is most probably a very heavy factor
in their low crime figures.
I find it most amusing that you can accuse others of a simplistic
attitude (ahem) whilst at the same time failing to recognise that the
impact of various methods of penal sanction will vary massively
dependent upon the culture in which they are used.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped PV blasting me, Earl and SG for our 'racism'>
>> Richard has also
>> fallen into this trap but is far less defensive than the other
>> three. He really does believe that it's all a matter of
>> blacks rejecting the idle life and pulling themselves together.
>> Again it's his lack of imagination that lets him down.
>>
>
>Without getting into that -- when one is faced with a life
>of poverty and despair - hopelessness, rather than laziness
>is the frequent result.
That sums you up a treat, PV
You spend five or so kilobytes lambasting any who are anti-DP that
have ever used a term which you find offensive.
When it comes to one of 'your boys', and, might I add, one of your
boys who has consistently expressed views which could more accurately
be termed racist than any other poster (except maybe Frank), you
'don't want to get into that' and make an irrelevant profound
statement of the type which appeals to John.
What a complete hypocrite you are.
w00f
dirtdog
<j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>
>Before I plonk your new address I note that you have placed bracketed a
>wholly fictitious remark with apostrophes. This then is a lie, you often
>lie and
>the person you lie most to is yourself.
Oh dear, John. What utter nonsense. I very rarely lie, and are
wilfully deceptive only very rarely when I feel like winding PV up.
Your are quite obviously deteriorating, your increasing dislike of me
is making you as bitter and prone to silly errors as PV - and why you
persist in commenting on my posts when you purport to have killfiled
me is beyond belief.
For a start, the fictitious remark was not in apostrophes - it is in
quotation marks, and is not presented as something that you have
actually said, but as a paraphrase of somethig I wholly expected you
to say. Perhaps placing it in square brackets would have been more
appropriate.
Where this 'lie to yourself' bollocks comes from I don't know. Very
profound, but wholly incorrect and massively ineffectual. If you hoped
this would make me sit back, take notice and think how thoroughly
silly I am, you're much mistaken
> I mentioned 'abos'
>in particular thread. In the same thread I remarked to Mr D that abo was
>a short form of aboriginal which I happen to regard as a truly disgusting
Indeed you did. In fact you said:
" Of course, we all find
that hard but you and I Mr D are paragons in this respect.
(except when some one tells a funny story about an abo.)"
Taken out of context, you have used a word which you acknowledge is
offensive to those it describes. Your position seems to be that the
mere use of the word is offensive. You have thus acted in a manner
which is willfully offensive to others, which is actually _more_
heinous than my own similar use of a word which I argue is _not_
offensive.
Of course, the threads in which I have previously used 'jigaboo' are
peppered with long and detailed posts about misconceptions of racism,
and how pointless true racial discrimination is. Of course, _you_
didn't see that.
<snipped pinko political correctness>
> As for 'papist' I cannot
>remember typing that word but I will accept that I did and did not
>recognise that it was regarded as insulting.
Fuck off!
You are old and well travelled. Don't try and tell me now that you
didn't have the slightest clue that 'Papist' is a derogatory term.
You're simply squirming because you are prone to occasional outbursts
of hypocrisy which you do not like to recognise.
In truth, I care not one bit what terms you use for jocular effect. I
am bright enough to realise that words without meaning are harmless,
and that life is too short to take offence at such silly things. It
shows how very short sighted you can be that you throw your arms about
at the mere use traditionally 'offensive' words, but sit there in
silence when Teflon goes off on one of his deeply racist 'they don't
want to work' outbursts, and even use less common derogatory terms
yourself when you feel like it.
w00f
dirtdog
Eh?
w00f
dirtdog
Quite untrue, PV.
I am perhaps more aware of what racism really is that you will ever
be, and I should be most interested to learn why you consider making
any remark which recognises that persons whose family come from
certain regions of the planet have distinct physical features. This is
a fact, and your fear at recognising this tends to make me believe
that you are simply perpetuating the old belief that there is
something inherently wrong with certain skin colours or facial
features.
> It's not all
>about tying a Black to the fender of your truck and driving
>until he is dead. Nor is it about 'delicate sensibilities' over
>the use of certain words. Tell me, it you said 'subhuman'
>when you spoke of a Black, would you consider THAT a
>racist remark?
Don't be so absurd.
The term black refers to a person's skin colour. It is wholly
inaccurate, but serves as a useful shorthand for persons of the
Negroid race - just as 'white' is a useful shorthand for the caucasoid
race.
> Understand that is your implication when
>you use the particular word you use. It is no less demeaning
>than using the other word. The 'words' themselves are not
>the issues. It's about a MIND-SET. And what the 'words'
>speak to that mind-set. And you two certainly show such
>a mind-set.
>
There is no topic on whic you're as clueless than this, PV (except
perhaps your penchant for blindly defending US foreign policy). To say
that the word 'black' is demeaning is the most ludicrous thing I have
heard for some time. and I should be most interested to hear why you
believe this to be so.
w00f
dirtdog
<dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote:
<snipped>
>
>I am perhaps more aware of what racism really is that you will ever
>be, and I should be most interested to learn why you consider making
>any remark which recognises that persons whose family come from
>certain regions of the planet have distinct physical features...
...is racist.
Of course, you knew what I meant.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.o...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
news:vni5cuk18ipto51pc...@4ax.com...
rate. That's FACT. It negates any belief that the DP is
responsible for a high murder rate, which was YOUR
conclusion. The fact is that YOUR comment is 'just
opinion.' There is absolutely no FACT contained within
your short comment, while mine relates to the FACT
that Japan has both the DP and the lowest murder rate.
<more pathetic whining clipped>
> > An unreasoned
> >approach to a complex problem, not having its roots in
> >the DP.
>
> Silly me.
>
What's new? Have you ever been otherwise? Especially
in your 'opposite man' persona.
> Here I am talking of a subtle combination of sociological, economic
> and cultural factors causing your country's circle of violence,
> possibly including even the method you employ to purportedly combat
> this problem. How very simplistic of me.
>
Yes... extremely simplistic. Your simplistic opinion does
not constitute fact, yet you've tried to present it as some
sort of axiom. There is no substance to any claim of a
'nation's culture of revenge.' It's simply emotional claptrap.
Probably coming from the fact you are 'fatherless' as is another
poster here, who is equally obsessed with things American.
Apparently a Father figure is quite valuable in nurturing a
logical background. While the Mother figure is more
responsible for emotional content which I see you as full of.
Obviously the DP cannot help to underpin what isn't
there. And, given the fact that my society is hideously
violent, the connection to the DP being the underpin of
THAT is equally absurd. The DP is a RESPONSE to that,
not the CAUSE of it, you moron. The violent society is
the underpin of the DP! Eliminating the DP will go
NOWHERE in reducing violence. Axiomatically, it can
ONLY become worse. If we punish rapists with 3 months
in jail, do you believe that the crime of rape will
DISAPPEAR? or only grow LARGER?
> It would be much more intelligent to rant about EVIL murderers and
> claim that the only way to show people that murder is wrong is to
> execute those found guilty of it.
>
Sounds good to me. Much better than claiming we should
'pity' murderers. Gee.... wasn't that what YOU suggested?
> <snipped>
>
> >
> >If the DP IS responsible for violence, then how do you
> >explain Japan? Something you seem to have just ignored
> >in your typical rant.
<pathetic whine clipped>
> I have not said that the DP is solely responsible for violence, as
> much as you would like me to have done as such. I state that it may be
> _one_ factor contributing to your country's culture of revenge and
> retribution.
>
No, no... you didn't say 'may.' Read your damn words.
I don't find a 'may' ANYWHERE. Until just now. Nonetheless,
if you mean 'may' then opinions are like assholes, everyone
has one. And you're welcome to yours. Just as I frequently
use mine. Just don't try to claim it as factual. Apparently
you value YOUR opinion as fact, and my fact as opinion.
The fact of this entire thread -- that the DP and an elevated
murder rate CANNOT be connected -- is PROVEN by the FACT
of Japan. This PROVES there are OTHER factors at work.
> As for Japan, you are perfectly aware that their society is very
> disciplined and orderly - which is most probably a very heavy factor
> in their low crime figures.
>
I've never said there wasn't, stupid. I've said that you cannot
presume that the DP CREATES a high murder rate, which
is what you've been trying to show. Japan disproves
any such thought. Of course there are other factors at
work. But the DP is not ONE OF THEM.
> I find it most amusing that you can accuse others of a simplistic
> attitude (ahem) whilst at the same time failing to recognise that the
> impact of various methods of penal sanction will vary massively
> dependent upon the culture in which they are used.
Having NOTHING to do with the argument. It is your
simplistic argument that is in question here. Your simplistic
statement that the DP underpins a violent society. It is
proven that your argument is false. Since Japan has the
DP and is NOT a violent society. You'll have to look
elsewhere for the reason for that violence, which is what
I've been saying all along.
PV
>
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
news:26l5cu0bvbe5eom5m...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 01:50:29 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped PV blasting me, Earl and SG for our 'racism'>
>
> >> Richard has also
> >> fallen into this trap but is far less defensive than the other
> >> three. He really does believe that it's all a matter of
> >> blacks rejecting the idle life and pulling themselves together.
> >> Again it's his lack of imagination that lets him down.
> >>
> >
> >Without getting into that -- when one is faced with a life
> >of poverty and despair - hopelessness, rather than laziness
> >is the frequent result.
>
> That sums you up a treat, PV
>
> You spend five or so kilobytes lambasting any who are anti-DP that
> have ever used a term which you find offensive.
>
but racist when I see you post. Even now, in your hysteria.
> When it comes to one of 'your boys', and, might I add, one of your
> boys who has consistently expressed views which could more accurately
> be termed racist than any other poster (except maybe Frank), you
> 'don't want to get into that' and make an irrelevant profound
> statement of the type which appeals to John.
>
No, Richard has been nowhere near the racist that you have
shown yourself to be. He was speaking to a particular view
of a particular segment that he sees within the broader
segment of our society. Not ALL Blacks, as YOU have expressed
in your insulting words. I find deep disagreement with his
view, but don't see it as racist. He expects more from that
particular segment of Blacks who have been oppressed than
I believe is reasonable to expect. Additionally, he has quite
clearly put that into the perspective of a 'colorless' view of those
unwilling to work and lacking the initiative to pull themselves
together. I don't think he's ever read the book 'Black like me,'
to put prejudice into its proper perspective (nor I'm sure have
you, Mark or Earl read the book as well). A lot has changed
since Griffin set out in 1959, reporting a journey which
profoundly affected my views on racism, as it did to certainly
a great number of Americans. But a lot has stayed the
same, only burrowing itself deeper.
Richard sees the same poverty and despair as I do (which
goes a long way toward an understanding of the problem),
but believes Blacks should do more individually to rise above it.
When quite frankly, I see that we are the ones keeping them
from rising above it. Richard sees prosperous, middle-class
Blacks who are not violent, and asks himself why others can't
also be the same, perhaps not realizing that it's much more
difficult than he believes. But I do not believe it is racism that
speaks in Richard's words.
> What a complete hypocrite you are.
>
And what a complete and utter racist you are. And that
needs no further proof from me... since you have damned
yourself many times here.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.o...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
talk trash.
> Notice that even in the pissy little provincial code you manage to
> quote after many hours of searching Google, you're still way off mark.
>
ROTFLMAO. When it's MY proof, it's pissy little provincial
code. It's a code that's applicable to 20 million people,
sport. So grow up. And it's not the first time I've used the
Texas criminal code to demonstrate that you'd need a
heavy duty tractor, and a high power winch and crane to
extract your head from the nether regions it resides in.
> Now paragraph (a) is quite patently a rule that mitigating
> circumstances can reduce the level of punishment imposed for an
> offence. A person _convicted_ of a felony can be _punished_ at the
> level of a misdemeanor if circumstances warrant it.
>
> Notive that the class of _actual_ offence remains the same, a person
> is convicted of a felony, but their punishment is reduced.
>
Yes.. the punishment has been reduced to the level of
a lesser offense.
> Paragraph (b) is simply a procedural provision which allows for your
> prosecutors to prosecute for the lesser offence if they wish to. This
> is thier choice and the level of the offence is still not degraded -
> it simply allows for discretion. Notice the word _authorised_.
>
Ah... so you AGREE that they can prosecute for the
lesser offense if they wish. Isn't that the whole point here?
They do so because of mitigating circumstances. They
could quite well prosecute for the higher offense, with the
crime having met the standard of that higher offense. But
they find that mitigating circumstances for whatever reason
causes them to prosecute for the lesser offense. Seems
like you DENIED that possibility when we first began here.
> This is really nothing ground breaking, PV. Prosecutorial discretion
> is quite an old concept.
>
Seems like you didn't know it, until I explained it to you.
> Ho hum. It's like trying to argue with a spastic.
>
I know... When will you ever show sparks of that 'classical
education' you claim you have? Speaking of spastic --
"Who was James Boswell?" ROTFLMAO.. You illiterate
jerkoff. You have all of collective England shaking their
heads in 'pity' at you.
PV
>
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:diablo-E29EA7....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
the LOWEST murder rate, perhaps it DOES have something to
do with that rate! Of course, my point is actually that 'the DP
has nothing to do with the differing murder rates in different
countries.' As demonstrated by the Japanese murder rate
and their use of the DP. The use of the DP and the murder
rate in one society, cannot be correlated to the use of the
DP and the murder rate in another society. They are society
independent phenomenon. Not that they cannot affect the
murder rate in the specific societies. Quite clearly, the
ABSENCE of the DP may increase an already small
murder rate. I believe an increase is being experienced in
the U.K. at present. Nevertheless, it would be presumptuous
to blame it on that absence of the DP. But quite clearly, the
USE of the DP may decrease an already elevated murder rate.
A lot of the reasoning to use the DP DEPENDS on the
preexisting murder rate. And with a higher murder rate, the
effect of removing some murderers from the pool of those
who have already murdered would seem to have a more
certain effect on that murder rate. Certainly in terms
of recidivist murders.
What is demonstrated by the data is that NOTHING can be
said which would connect the use of the DP to causing a
HIGHER murder rate. I believe that desi's original presentation
of the data was intended to presume a causal connection of
the absence of the DP in Europe to that lower murder rate
(except he was probably just being his chauvinistic European
redneck self). My comment was intended to show that the
data does not substantiate such an argument. There is no
causal connection in respect to the DP creating a higher
murder rate (Japan has both the DP and a lower murder
rate).
> > Or are you determined to be blind to that
> > fact? Argue all you wish that the U.S. is a violent society.
> > I will agree with that analysis. Nonetheless, trying to
> > connect the homicide rate to being CAUSED by the DP
> > is logically absurd... and you KNOW IT.
>
> But haven't you painted yourself into a rather small corner, here?
>
My point has always been that trying to claim that the
use or absence of the DP is RESPONSIBLE for a higher
or lower murder rate is absurd. The DP is used because
society wishes it to be used. And that results from a
perception by society that it is necessary BECAUSE of
an elevated murder rate. Thus, the DP does not CAUSE
what is already there. This is the point brought home in
the case of Japan. Of course, there is NO DOUBT in
my mind that the DP can affect the murder rate in REDUCING
that rate. There is no possibility of presuming that the DP
LEADS to more murders. One could only form or even offer
such an opinion if they could present MEANINGFUL, long-term
data which would show that the SAME society experienced
a long-term DROP in the murder rate AFTER abolishing the
DP. I think you'll find just the opposite, regardless of how
some hope to twist the data.
And none of this even takes into effect how we view murder,
when we presume that no murderer and no murder reaches
the level which would demand of our own sensibilities that
we could respond with an execution of such a person.
This presumes that Theodore Frank, John Wayne Gacy and
Ted Bundy could go to sleep each night, secure in their own
future, with a smile on their lips remembering their acts,
receiving medical treatment including transplants to KEEP
them alive, until they are old, and gray. Personally... I'll
have none of it. The only thing that would ever make me
agree that abolishing the DP is 'right' (IMHO), would be the
perception by me that we execute more INNOCENTS then
those we do execute would have murdered NEW innocents,
had we not executed them. There's not much chance of
something like that happening to change my mind, considering
that Coleman is the best shot at believing an innocent was
executed post-Furman, and still seeing Randy Greenawalt
murder four innocents after he was convicted of murder.
And a literal host of other murderers who were not executed
who committed new murders of innocents.
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:XyFw8.276461$K52.43...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> >
snip
> Ummm... Japan has both the DP and the lowest murder
> rate. That's FACT. It negates any belief that the DP is
> responsible for a high murder rate, which was YOUR
> conclusion. The fact is that YOUR comment is 'just
> opinion.' There is absolutely no FACT contained within
> your short comment, while mine relates to the FACT
> that Japan has both the DP and the lowest murder rate.
I might just mention here that the interval between
the last execution that occurred in Japan and the one
before that was 18 months. Sure Japan has the DP
but uses it so sparingly that it can hardly be a factor
when it comes to Japan's supposedly low murder rate.
Japan's very high suicide rate does include many
deaths that would be considered as murders in
Western society (when a man kills himself and his
family - all are counted as suicides) and distorts
the murder rate figures.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 00:47:39 +0100, "John Rennie"
> <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> <snipped>
>
>
> >
> >Before I plonk your new address I note that you have placed bracketed a
> >wholly fictitious remark with apostrophes. This then is a lie, you
> >often
> >lie and
> >the person you lie most to is yourself.
>
> Oh dear, John. What utter nonsense. I very rarely lie, and are
> wilfully deceptive
And _am_ wilfully deceptive, surely?
Or have you taken to using the plural pronoun, in which case it should
be "we very rarely lie."
*bouncebouncebouncebouncebounce*
St.George
"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 00:47:39 +0100, "John Rennie"
> <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> <snipped>
>
>
> >
> >Before I plonk your new address I note that you have placed bracketed a
> >wholly fictitious remark with apostrophes. This then is a lie, you often
> >lie and
> >the person you lie most to is yourself.
>
> Oh dear, John. What utter nonsense. I very rarely lie, and are
> wilfully deceptive only very rarely when I feel like winding PV up.
>
> Your are quite obviously deteriorating, your increasing dislike of me
> is making you as bitter and prone to silly errors as PV - and why you
> persist in commenting on my posts when you purport to have killfiled
> me is beyond belief.
>
> For a start, the fictitious remark was not in apostrophes - it is in
> quotation marks, and is not presented as something that you have
> actually said, but as a paraphrase of somethig I wholly expected you
> to say. Perhaps placing it in square brackets would have been more
> appropriate.
No excuse son. Quotemark Police here, and you're bang to
faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaackin rights.
Rennie's sang like a blahhdy canary, and we're putting you down for this my
sahn.
Into the vahn.
St.George
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:WyFw8.276460$K52.43...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
<snip>
> And what a complete and utter racist you are. And that
> needs no further proof from me... since you have damned
> yourself many times here.
Something I see the two of you dance around - and quite strangely, it seems
to me - is the fact that dirtdog (claims to be) at least partially black.
It is unlikely, therefore, is it not PV, that he is racist towards blacks as
you repeatedly imply.
So what's the story, PV - are you claiming that he is lying about his
colour? Because THAT seems jolly racist to me!
John Rennie
Doggie also claims to fuck his own family. If we believe him does that make
us credulous? And if we don't believe him, does that makes us puritanical?
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> I am perhaps more aware of what racism really is that you will ever
> be, and I should be most interested to learn why you consider making
> any remark which recognises that persons whose family come from
> certain regions of the planet have distinct physical features. This is
> a fact, and your fear at recognising this tends to make me believe
> that you are simply perpetuating the old belief that there is
> something inherently wrong with certain skin colours or facial
> features.
>
Sorry, sport. It won't wash .... AGAIN. I remember the last
time you tried to divert attention from YOUR OWN racism
by calling me 'david.' It's pathetic. You might as well arm
yourself with a pea shooter, after having been blasted with
a 12 gauge. If you can use the words you use, with such
utter abandon... you could not have ANY idea what racism
is.
> > It's not all
> >about tying a Black to the fender of your truck and driving
> >until he is dead. Nor is it about 'delicate sensibilities' over
> >the use of certain words. Tell me, it you said 'subhuman'
> >when you spoke of a Black, would you consider THAT a
> >racist remark?
>
> Don't be so absurd.
>
Sure... I understand... you believe it's okay to provide a racial
epithet toward ALL Blacks in general, but you have to draw the
line somewhere. You're opposed to racial insults if they
involve PHYSICAL violence. But care nothing about the 'violence'
you commit on the 'inner person' with words. Nothing about the
'violence' you commit on your own sense of decency, with words.
Nothing about the mental 'violence' you commit on the one you call
such a name. Do you think calling someone that name doesn't
commit such 'violence'? Of course, you feel YOU can determine
where that arbitary line is between physical violence and 'just
words.' But did you ever think that maybe OTHERS draw a
different line? Did you ever think that what determines if a
word offends is how OTHERS see that word, rather than you?
Did you ever think that when you utter a word which offends
an entire 'race' you are simply not that much better than the
one at the wheel of the truck? You just never ACTED on your
feelings. But inside, they reflect a feeling of hatred, regardless
of your pathetic excuse that 'they're just words.'
> The term black refers to a person's skin colour. It is wholly
> inaccurate, but serves as a useful shorthand for persons of the
> Negroid race - just as 'white' is a useful shorthand for the caucasoid
> race.
>
But neither 'White' nor 'Black' are insults. While yours is an
insult DIRECTED at a specific 'race.' You'd now hope to engage
in an anthropological argument? You'd lose there as well.
Of course, we use shorthand when we speak of 'racial'
characteristics. I've said before, in some lengthy dialogs with
you almost a year ago, that it's ALL an artificial construct of
man. In Aug of last year -- See
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl892591137d&dq=&hl=en&selm=yvEi7.84603%240
X.15854211%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&rnum=75
and again in June of last year from me to you.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=taxonomy+group:alt.activism.death-penalty+auth
or:Planet&hl=en&selm=CagW6.458207%24o9.74242996%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&rnum=1
Where I quoted a source -- "The biological concept of race . . .
has no basis in science."
Dr. Harold Freeman, Celera Genomics Corp., quoted in the
Science Journal Mercury, "Race not seen as factor in variation
of genetic code," Feb. 20, 2001.
We are ONLY the 'human race' in terms of the taxonomy of
our species. We are all genus 'homo,' and species 'sapiens.'
The term Black and White and Yellow and Brown and Red
all relate to a GENERALIZED characteristic of what is
evident in our physical appearance, having nothing to do
with our species. They are man-made, rather than nature
made characterizations within the parameters of our
anthropological origins. Understand, dirt, that ANY
argument which relates to ANYTHING other than your
piss-ant contract law, is an argument where you are totally
out of your depth. Stick to 'civil law,' sport. Otherwise,
you simply look like the fool you are.
> > Understand that is your implication when
> >you use the particular word you use. It is no less demeaning
> >than using the other word. The 'words' themselves are not
> >the issues. It's about a MIND-SET. And what the 'words'
> >speak to that mind-set. And you two certainly show such
> >a mind-set.
> >
>
> There is no topic on whic you're as clueless than this, PV (except
> perhaps your penchant for blindly defending US foreign policy). To say
> that the word 'black' is demeaning is the most ludicrous thing I have
> heard for some time. and I should be most interested to hear why you
> believe this to be so.
>
'Black' is not demeaning... Just as 'Human' is not demeaning.
But when placing a demeaning characterization on a particular
physical characteristic, it is certainly demeaning. The word
you use IS NOT a substitute for 'Black,' it is a substitute for
'Other-than-Human Black,' if you would only understand that
such is the meaning when used. There is no dictionary that
presumes that the word substitutes for 'Black.' It only refers
to 'an offensive name for a Black.' Therefore, ANY offensive
name can be implied. It is NOT a reference to a certain
specific Black... but intends to brush across the entire spectrum
of ALL Blacks. it is QUITE specific, being defined as offensive
and it is racist, being defined as applying to a SPECIFIC 'race.'
It fills two direct criteria which define racism. It is offensive,
and it relates specifically to a 'race.' That makes it a racist
insult, and the one providing that racist insult, a racist.
YOU. dirt... YOU.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
your hope is to accuse me of racism for having detected
racism in your comments. Typical!!
BTW -- Nottingham Hillbilly redneck racist.
PV
> w00f
>
>
>
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>
>
>BTW -- Nottingham Hillbilly redneck racist.
>
Sigh.
If being called a 'Nottingham Hillbilly redneck racist' bothered me
one iota, do you really think I'd have pointed it out to you?
Feel free to live, though.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<clumsy fumbling snipped>
>>
>Ah... so you AGREE that they can prosecute for the
>lesser offense if they wish. Isn't that the whole point here?
No. The point here is that mitigating circumstances in law affect only
the level of sentence imposed, not the crime committed.
>They do so because of mitigating circumstances.
No, they prosecute the lesser offence because of prosecutorial
discretion, anticipating that mitigating circumstances will inevitably
lower any sentence imposed anyway.
It is not the operation of the doctrine of mitigation which is the
cause for this. Patently not.
<PV being wrong snipped>
>"Who was James Boswell?"
I told you, the French teacher off Grange Hill. Or was that Bronson?
Fuck it anyway. Zammo's a skag head.
>ROTFLMAO
Thanks, I try.
<PV displaying how rare it is that he knows something I don't by
masturbating ferociously snipped>
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>. Apparently
>you value YOUR opinion as fact, and my fact as opinion.
>The fact of this entire thread -- that the DP and an elevated
>murder rate CANNOT be connected -- is PROVEN by the FACT
>of Japan. This PROVES there are OTHER factors at work.
Simpleton.
Like I said, certain practices will inevitably have differing impacts
upon different cultures.
It is a nonsense to claim that Japan having a low murder rate PROVES
that the DP in the US has nothing to do with high murder rates. It
merely shows that this is probably not the case in Japan.
It merely proves that the DP doesn't necessarily have the inherent
effect of causing a culture of violence. That is a far cry from
PROVING it does not have such an effect in the US.
You really must learn how to examine evidence and reach conclusions,
because, quite frankly, you're piss poor at it.
[yada yada yada]
w00f
dirtdog
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <hvm5cugji53v6tjr2...@4ax.com>, dirtdog
><dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 00:47:39 +0100, "John Rennie"
>> <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> <snipped>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Before I plonk your new address I note that you have placed bracketed a
>> >wholly fictitious remark with apostrophes. This then is a lie, you
>> >often
>> >lie and
>> >the person you lie most to is yourself.
>>
>> Oh dear, John. What utter nonsense. I very rarely lie, and are
>> wilfully deceptive
>
>And _am_ wilfully deceptive, surely?
>
>Or have you taken to using the plural pronoun, in which case it should
>be "we very rarely lie."
>
>*bouncebouncebouncebouncebounce*
>
>Mr Q. Z. D.
What's this? Fucking nitpick me day?
You're all a GANG against ME. I KNOW what your AGENDA is in plotting.
It's UNBELIEVABLE, it really IS.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:WyFw8.276460$K52.43...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > And what a complete and utter racist you are. And that
> > needs no further proof from me... since you have damned
> > yourself many times here.
>
>
>
> Something I see the two of you dance around - and quite strangely, it seems
> to me - is the fact that dirtdog (claims to be) at least partially black.
>
That has nothing to do with racism. One cannot hide behind
race to claim a 'right' to be racist.
> It is unlikely, therefore, is it not PV, that he is racist towards blacks as
> you repeatedly imply.
>
Why is that so unlikely? Are you presuming that one cannot
demonstrate racist tendencies toward their own race? I hate
to resurrect this, but YOU certainly provided a racist remark
sometime back about 'Whites.' Implying they (and you of
course by definition) are "inferior to other breeds of homo
sapiens."
> So what's the story, PV - are you claiming that he is lying about his
> colour? Because THAT seems jolly racist to me!
No... I can imagine his paternal stock was a Black American
GI, who abandoned his Mother shortly after dirt was born.
And therein lies his hate for Blacks and Americans as well.
We well know that dirt is filled with self-loathing. Demonstrated
by his obscenity which works to translate this self-loathing
into hoping others see it as well. And by his general hate
which he has expressed for just about EVERYTHING here
at one time or another. Even his country. Those characteristics,
along with the sour, bitter emotions he displays here all fit
the profile of someone who not only hates himself, and his
country, but hates in specific patterns. One of those patterns
being Blacks, whether he is or is not among those he hates,
since he also hates himself. In any case, I would disagree
that claiming he lies about his race, is racist itself. That's
simply more 'dirt philosophy,' if you ask me. It's perfectly
reasonable that having been detected as racist, he would
try to hide behind the protection of calling himself Black, in
order to say whatever he felt like saying, now claiming that
it 'couldn't' be racist, because he's Black. His first mention
of being half-Black was immediately after I had called him
on some comment that appeared to me to be racist. Dirt
is not STUPID. We know that. But he is certainly diabolical.
Using your logic, FRANK could call himself Black, and
continue what we KNOW to be racist comments, but claim
it wasn't because he claims to be Black. I do not class
dirt with FRANK. But racism certainly has degrees. One
has only to examine the racists that dragged a Black to
his death, to realize that fact. I would agree that perhaps
I am too sensitive on this subject, but it's painful to me
to think I can let it pass without saying something.
PV
>
>
JIGSAW1695
From: "St.George" god_save_t...@yahoo.co.uk
Date: 4/21/2002 7:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <a9vjdp$tla$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
Into the vahn.
==========================
Look, George, we all know how badly you want Rennie's job of Grammar and
Spelling Commissar, but he has the final word as long as he holds office.
I think I should caution you that your personal attack on him does not look
well on your record. You would do well to consider your future and display a
more professionalism.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> fumbles about in message
news:m6p6cukdm6kgar064...@4ax.com...
<clipped>
> >Ah... so you AGREE that they can prosecute for the
> >lesser offense if they wish. Isn't that the whole point here?
>
> No. The point here is that mitigating circumstances in law affect only
> the level of sentence imposed, not the crime committed.
>
Crap... mitigating circumstances are 'circumstances that
mitigate.' Cheee... I've already provided about five cites
showing that. Once again... "Mitigating circumstances
which will reduce degree of homicide to manslaughter
are the commission of the killing in a sudden heat of
passion caused by adequate legal provocation. (People
v. Morris 31 Michigan Appeals Report 301, 187 North
Western Reporter 2d 434, 438.)"
Why don't you just admit that your argument is not based
on factual evidence that mitigating circumstance cannot
decide the degree of the offence charged? It's silly to
pursue this because you can offer nothing which would
DISPROVE these facts. Certainly offering proof that it
can reduce penalties does not prove that it cannot also
determine the degree of the offense for which charged.
> >They do so because of mitigating circumstances.
>
> No, they prosecute the lesser offence because of prosecutorial
> discretion, anticipating that mitigating circumstances will inevitably
> lower any sentence imposed anyway.
>
No, sport, they prosecute the lesser offence because
circumstances of the crime mitigate that crime to such
an extent that gaining a conviction on the higher charge,
although the crime fully meets the meaning of that crime,
are so dicey that they feel safer on the lesser charge. In
addition to working toward a 'plea bargain' on the lower
charge.
> It is not the operation of the doctrine of mitigation which is the
> cause for this. Patently not.
>
Sure it isn't... except that it is -- Extracted from --
http://www.law.com/
See
http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1267&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C
"MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES --
n. in criminal law, conditions or happenings which do
not excuse or justify criminal conduct, but are considered
out of mercy or fairness in deciding the degree of the
offense the prosecutor charges or influencing reduction
of the penalty upon conviction."
See how it affects 'the degree of the offense the prosecutor
charges'?
So once again, you're simply full of shit. But I know you'll
simply complain that what does any old 'law dictionary know'?
You know better. The 'doctrine of mitigation' is quite a bit
more broad than you'd wish to confine it to, Ham Man.
Like your mens rea argument, where you claimed it could
ONLY be a 'criminal mind,' and I clearly showed it could
ALSO be 'criminal intent.' And your rather stupendously
stupid claim that 'defense' is the OPPOSITE of 'Protection.'
You've never allowed reason to interfere with your blindness
or penetrate that thick skull of yours.
> <PV being wrong snipped>
>
ROTFLMAO..
> >"Who was James Boswell?"
>
<pathetic excuse about not knowing or caring about the answer
snipped>
PV
>
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
PV
>
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 20:46:47 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> >. Apparently
> >you value YOUR opinion as fact, and my fact as opinion.
> >The fact of this entire thread -- that the DP and an elevated
> >murder rate CANNOT be connected -- is PROVEN by the FACT
> >of Japan. This PROVES there are OTHER factors at work.
>
> Simpleton.
>
> Like I said, certain practices will inevitably have differing impacts
> upon different cultures.
>
DP does not CREATE high murder rate. Regardless of ANY
other factors. What is the matter with your LOGIC???
> It is a nonsense to claim that Japan having a low murder rate PROVES
> that the DP in the US has nothing to do with high murder rates. It
> merely shows that this is probably not the case in Japan.
>
ROTFLMAO. It is a nonsense to claim that the U.S. having
a high murder rate is CAUSED by the DP, when another
nation also having the DP has the LOWEST murder rate.
Do you think the DP caused that LOWER rate as well??
If the DP per se, were responsible for a high murder rate, it
would CUT ACROSS all cultural barriers, at least to the
extent that it would be recognizable as a factor. It does not
do so in Japan, thus it cannot be demonstrated to do so in the
U.S. because of that fact. You simply have to find another
reason for the high murder rate. And you've ALREADY found
it, but it doesn't agree with your agenda. CULTURE of the
society. Having nothing to do with the DP in BOTH societies.
You see, sport, if it WAS the DP -- then it would BE the DP.
Regardless of cultural differences there would be a definite
demonstration of a greater murder rate then at least ONE
European country. Since they ALL do not have the DP. It's
simply a matter of obvious proof that it is NOT the DP which
creates a high murder rate. You just WISH it was. But you
can't just pick and choose, using an opinion as proof, when
proof to the contrary exists.
> It merely proves that the DP doesn't necessarily have the inherent
> effect of causing a culture of violence. That is a far cry from
> PROVING it does not have such an effect in the US.
>
It is not mine to prove, sport. Remember -- semper praesumitur
pro negante. And you know it. It is yours to PROVE, and the
example of the Japanese murder rate, disproves your 'opinion
based' argument.
> You really must learn how to examine evidence and reach conclusions,
> because, quite frankly, you're piss poor at it.
>
Yeah, right. I think I'm about to pee laughing again. Examine
the EVIDENCE -- Japan - DP -- Japan - LOWEST murder rate.
U.S. - DP -- U.S. HIGH murder rate. Proof of DP effect on
murder rate -- zero.
> [yada yada yada]
>
PV
> w00f
>
>
St.George
<snip>
> Sure... I understand... you believe it's okay to provide a racial
> epithet toward ALL Blacks in general, but you have to draw the
> line somewhere. You're opposed to racial insults if they
> involve PHYSICAL violence. But care nothing about the 'violence'
> you commit on the 'inner person' with words. Nothing about the
> 'violence' you commit on your own sense of decency, with words.
> Nothing about the mental 'violence' you commit on the one you call
> such a name.
He's right, dirtdog.
I still remember the deep scars you inflicted upon me when you assaulted my
inner person by calling me 'honkey' with mental violence malice
aforethought.
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> fumbles about in message
>news:m6p6cukdm6kgar064...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 20:46:47 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
><clipped>
>
>> >Ah... so you AGREE that they can prosecute for the
>> >lesser offense if they wish. Isn't that the whole point here?
>>
>> No. The point here is that mitigating circumstances in law affect only
>> the level of sentence imposed, not the crime committed.
>>
>Crap... mitigating circumstances are 'circumstances that
>mitigate.' Cheee... I've already provided about five cites
>showing that. Once again... "Mitigating circumstances
>which will reduce degree of homicide to manslaughter
>are the commission of the killing in a sudden heat of
>passion caused by adequate legal provocation. (People
>v. Morris 31 Michigan Appeals Report 301, 187 North
>Western Reporter 2d 434, 438.)"
Yawn. This is a defence, PV. It is not mitigation. The
book/magazine/webpage from which you quoted this verbatim is quite
simply mistaken, or you have taken it out of context
There is quite simply no need for me to go off scrabbling around for
some quote, any quote to reinforce this in the manner you have - my
original one was crystal clear.
[mitigation] "where a defendant whose guilt is not in dispute proves
facts tending to reduce the damages or punishment to be awarded
against him."
>
>Why don't you just admit that your argument is not based
>on factual evidence that mitigating circumstance cannot
>decide the degree of the offence charged? It's silly to
>pursue this because you can offer nothing which would
>DISPROVE these facts. Certainly offering proof that it
>can reduce penalties does not prove that it cannot also
>determine the degree of the offense for which charged.
You should have learned by now PV.
The doctrine of mitigation is a legal concept. Thus I afford it its
legal meaning, as you should do when using it in the context of the
law.
The correct legal definition of a word is just that - its correct
legal definition, and not your own silly misconception of it.
Thus, a mitigating circumstance in a criminal trial will have an
effect of reducing sentence - not degrading the offence. If you would
like to continue to misconstrue the word in typical fashion, and fail
to distinguish it from quite different concepts such as defences and
prosecutorial discretion, feel free. I shall just sit here tut-tutting
and slowly shaking my head at your cluelessness.
>
>> >They do so because of mitigating circumstances.
>>
>> No, they prosecute the lesser offence because of prosecutorial
>> discretion, anticipating that mitigating circumstances will inevitably
>> lower any sentence imposed anyway.
>>
>No, sport, they prosecute the lesser offence because
>circumstances of the crime mitigate that crime to such
>an extent that gaining a conviction on the higher charge,
>although the crime fully meets the meaning of that crime,
>are so dicey that they feel safer on the lesser charge.
Ho hum. Doing so for the sake of convenience and economy. This is not
mitigation, it is prosecutorial discretion
> In
>addition to working toward a 'plea bargain' on the lower
>charge.
>
>> It is not the operation of the doctrine of mitigation which is the
>> cause for this. Patently not.
>>
>Sure it isn't... except that it is -- Extracted from --
>http://www.law.com/
>See
>http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1267&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C
>"MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES --
>n. in criminal law, conditions or happenings which do
>not excuse or justify criminal conduct, but are considered
>out of mercy or fairness in deciding the degree of the
>offense the prosecutor charges or influencing reduction
>of the penalty upon conviction."
>
>See how it affects 'the degree of the offense the prosecutor
>charges'?
Nope. I see only how you have managed to consult what appears to be
the most fuckwittedly incorrect 'legal' (ahem) dictionary on Earth. I
note you omitted this line:
"See also: diminished capacity heat of passion Twinkie defense"
Fucking 'TWINKIE DEFENSE'?
How in the name of the lord can a defence also be a mitigating
circumstance?
Did you write this website?
How I chuckled my way through this childish collection of simplistic
and fundamentally flawed attempts to explain complex doctrines in the
manner a simpleton can understand. 'Murder' (malice aforethought) LOL!
' intent' (n. mental desire and will to act in a particular way')
ROTFLMAO! Oh how I laughed.
So, PV, does legal intent require 'desire'? I think we killed that one
a long time ago.
You really should stop relying on any old website Google spews out at
you, PV. More often than not, they're a load of old wank.
>
>So once again, you're simply full of shit. But I know you'll
>simply complain that what does any old 'law dictionary know'?
>You know better. The 'doctrine of mitigation' is quite a bit
>more broad than you'd wish to confine it to, Ham Man.
>Like your mens rea argument, where you claimed it could
>ONLY be a 'criminal mind,' and I clearly showed it could
>ALSO be 'criminal intent.' And your rather stupendously
>stupid claim that 'defense' is the OPPOSITE of 'Protection.'
>You've never allowed reason to interfere with your blindness
>or penetrate that thick skull of yours.
What a great big heap of smelly PV arse grapes. Show me a quote where
I said the mens rea was a 'criminal mind', and I'll remind you how
thoroughly spanked you were when I spelt out to you in GREAT BIG RED
LETTERS how it is a complete nonsense to describe mens rea as
'criminal intent', since such a definition is wholly circular.
Pull your socks up you fucking imbecile. Stick to something you're
good at - like moralistic pontificating.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>
>> It is a nonsense to claim that Japan having a low murder rate PROVES
>> that the DP in the US has nothing to do with high murder rates. It
>> merely shows that this is probably not the case in Japan.
>>
>ROTFLMAO. It is a nonsense to claim that the U.S. having
>a high murder rate is CAUSED by the DP, when another
>nation also having the DP has the LOWEST murder rate.
Thick? Oh yes.
You are boring me profusely with you inane misconstruction of
everything put to you.
The US undoubtedly a violent society. I can see no reason why the
infliction of violence by the state should have any effect to reduce
this culture of violence. If anything, common sense says it will
reinforce it. That is my point, so you may jump around and claim that
I believe the DP directly causes murder if you like, because you're a
fucking nutter and no-one reads your shit anyway.
<snipped pointless rant about fictitious comments>
>
>> You really must learn how to examine evidence and reach conclusions,
>> because, quite frankly, you're piss poor at it.
>>
>Yeah, right. I think I'm about to pee laughing again. Examine
>the EVIDENCE -- Japan - DP -- Japan - LOWEST murder rate.
>U.S. - DP -- U.S. HIGH murder rate. Proof of DP effect on
>murder rate -- zero.
SPAG! YOU FUCKING THICK SPAG!
This is your comment to which my reply was made:
"The fact of this entire thread -- that the DP and an elevated
murder rate CANNOT be connected -- is PROVEN by the FACT
of Japan."
You claim that Japan PROVES the DP cannot have a catalyst effect on
murder rates. I have not claimed that anything PROVES my claim that it
might in the US.
Again, I reiterate - you really must learn to absorb and evaluate
evidence. Read more slowly, and think at a more leisurely pace, PV.
Think about what evidence you are producing or criticising - is its
effect to prove, disprove or simply offer an alternative explanation?
Allow me to assist you: The fact that the US has a high murder rate
and Japan a low one proves only that the DP per se does not have a
direct and inevitable catalyst effect on said murder rates. That is
all. It does not PROVE in any way, shape or form that the DP in the US
does not contribute towards the culture which causes your disgraceful
homicide rate.
Lesson over. Try again.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 03:27:18 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> fumbles about in message
> >news:m6p6cukdm6kgar064...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 20:46:47 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >
> ><clipped>
> >
> >> >Ah... so you AGREE that they can prosecute for the
> >> >lesser offense if they wish. Isn't that the whole point here?
> >>
> >> No. The point here is that mitigating circumstances in law affect only
> >> the level of sentence imposed, not the crime committed.
> >>
> >Crap... mitigating circumstances are 'circumstances that
> >mitigate.' Cheee... I've already provided about five cites
> >showing that. Once again... "Mitigating circumstances
> >which will reduce degree of homicide to manslaughter
> >are the commission of the killing in a sudden heat of
> >passion caused by adequate legal provocation. (People
> >v. Morris 31 Michigan Appeals Report 301, 187 North
> >Western Reporter 2d 434, 438.)"
>
> Yawn. This is a defence, PV. It is not mitigation. The
> book/magazine/webpage from which you quoted this verbatim is quite
> simply mistaken, or you have taken it out of context
>
Have you ever thought that a defense of 'everybody is wrong,
and I'm right,' doesn't really show you are anything but a
pompous ass, without a clue... everybody is wrong and
you're right. How big a jerk are you intending to portray
yourself this time? You really have a problem with the
word 'defense.' Before it was the OPPOSITE of 'protection,'
now it CAN'T be 'mitigating circumstances.' ho ho ho.
I ask EVERYONE to take a look at http://www.law.com/
and try to tell me that this is a site which has less credibility
than dirt. Then look at THEIR definition of 'mitigating
circumstances' as opposed to dirt's pathetic words that
"This is a defence, PV." It's totally hilarious. In addition to
my having provided a legal cite. This is just monstrously
delicious to have pinned you so neatly, yet again, to that
wall of stupidity you seem to find enjoyable.
> There is quite simply no need for me to go off scrabbling around for
> some quote, any quote to reinforce this in the manner you have - my
> original one was crystal clear.
>
Of course not... your 'word' is as good as 'gold,' here. ROTFLMAO.
> [mitigation] "where a defendant whose guilt is not in dispute proves
> facts tending to reduce the damages or punishment to be awarded
> against him."
>
I do not deny that ALSO meets the definition of 'mitigation.'
I have shown that OTHER definitions meet that criteria.
It is simply not good enough to contend that yours is
the SUM TOTAL and COMPLETE meaning of that term
within the limits of the Law. I have provided PROOF to the
contrary that the definition encompasses a much broader
range. In point of fact, it is not necessary that a DEFENDANT
prove those facts. That would be a defense -- 'an affirmative
defense.' If they are self-evident in the penalty phase,
as conditions or happenings which would be considered out
of mercy or fairness, they are considered along with
aggravating circumstances to determine the proper penalty.
Without the defendant having to 'prove them' as your
definition stipulates.
>
> >
> >Why don't you just admit that your argument is not based
> >on factual evidence that mitigating circumstance cannot
> >decide the degree of the offence charged? It's silly to
> >pursue this because you can offer nothing which would
> >DISPROVE these facts. Certainly offering proof that it
> >can reduce penalties does not prove that it cannot also
> >determine the degree of the offense for which charged.
>
> You should have learned by now PV.
>
I have. You will NEVER learn to extract your head from
your ass.
> The doctrine of mitigation is a legal concept. Thus I afford it its
> legal meaning, as you should do when using it in the context of the
> law.
Yes, and mitigating circumstances in the context of the
law are --
"n. in criminal law, conditions or happenings which do not
excuse or justify criminal conduct, but are considered out
of mercy or fairness in deciding the degree of the offense
the prosecutor charges or influencing reduction of the
penalty upon conviction. Example: a young man shoots
his father after years of being beaten, belittled, sworn at
and treated without love. "Heat of passion" or "diminished
capacity" are forms of such mitigating circumstances."
> The correct legal definition of a word is just that - its correct
> legal definition, and not your own silly misconception of it.
>
Actually... it's YOUR silly misconception. Your mind
has turned to mush. Mitigating circumstances are much
more broad than you would narrowly define them. And
you know that, but your arrogant, and crude approach
to every argument prevents you from admitting that. I
can well imagine why you will always remain limited to
being a 'solicitor.' I am sure you would be either laughed
out or thrown out of every courtroom. Stick to keeping the
toilet paper roll filled, dirt.
> Thus, a mitigating circumstance in a criminal trial will have an
> effect of reducing sentence - not degrading the offence. If you would
> like to continue to misconstrue the word in typical fashion, and fail
> to distinguish it from quite different concepts such as defences and
> prosecutorial discretion, feel free. I shall just sit here tut-tutting
> and slowly shaking my head at your cluelessness.
>
You can sit there tut-tutting all day long. Nonetheless, you
have offered nothing but your personal opinion that mitigating
circumstances cannot reduce the offence charged. While I
have provided a number of cites and LEGAL references which
prove that those circumstances MAY do just that. You're big
on opinion, and short on fact, sport.
> >
> >> >They do so because of mitigating circumstances.
> >>
> >> No, they prosecute the lesser offence because of prosecutorial
> >> discretion, anticipating that mitigating circumstances will inevitably
> >> lower any sentence imposed anyway.
> >>
> >No, sport, they prosecute the lesser offence because
> >circumstances of the crime mitigate that crime to such
> >an extent that gaining a conviction on the higher charge,
> >although the crime fully meets the meaning of that crime,
> >are so dicey that they feel safer on the lesser charge.
>
> Ho hum. Doing so for the sake of convenience and economy. This is not
> mitigation, it is prosecutorial discretion
>
Ho hum. Based on mitigating circumstances. Cheee...
> > In
> >addition to working toward a 'plea bargain' on the lower
> >charge.
> >
> >> It is not the operation of the doctrine of mitigation which is the
> >> cause for this. Patently not.
> >>
> >Sure it isn't... except that it is -- Extracted from --
> >http://www.law.com/
> >See
> >http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1267&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C
> >"MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES --
> >n. in criminal law, conditions or happenings which do
> >not excuse or justify criminal conduct, but are considered
> >out of mercy or fairness in deciding the degree of the
> >offense the prosecutor charges or influencing reduction
> >of the penalty upon conviction."
> >
> >See how it affects 'the degree of the offense the prosecutor
> >charges'?
>
> Nope. I see only how you have managed to consult what appears to be
> the most ****wittedly incorrect 'legal' (ahem) dictionary on Earth. I
> note you omitted this line:
>
TRANSLATION -- 'Although funded by a great number of
legal authorities, they cannot provide greater authority than
my ****wit opinion.'
> "See also: diminished capacity heat of passion Twinkie defense"
>
> ****ing 'TWINKIE DEFENSE'?
>
First diminished capacity and heat of passion are hardly
arguable as mitigating circumstances, and I do not believe
were part of your contention that they are not. Are you now
contending that diminished capacity and heat of passion
are NOT mitigating circumstances?
And obviously, you haven't looked up the case that this
defense refers to. How stupid is THAT? It was a famous
case argued successfully as to diminished mental
capacity,as an extenuating circumstance. Which
BTW - if you look at it, resulted in a reduction in the
charge from murder to manslaughter, for which the
perpetrator was convicted. Something you said
couldn't happen, I believe, in the context of mitigating
circumstances.
> How in the name of the lord can a defence also be a mitigating
> circumstance?
How in the world can you call yourself a lawyer? You don't
see an 'affirmative defense' as presenting circumstances
in mitigation? That certainly seems to go against even
YOUR narrow definition of mitigation. I mean when a
defendant is proving facts, he is mounting a defense, is
he not? And that IS mitigation? Is it not? Thus, defense
very certainly connects with mitigating circumstances.
And can obviously be BOTH.
> Did you write this website?
>
> How I chuckled my way through this childish collection of simplistic
> and fundamentally flawed attempts to explain complex doctrines in the
> manner a simpleton can understand. 'Murder' (malice aforethought) LOL!
> ' intent' (n. mental desire and will to act in a particular way')
> ROTFLMAO! Oh how I laughed.
>
Ignorance always find an excuse to laugh, dirt. Mostly,
it is laughed AT. So... ho ho ho. Nonetheless, you
have presented nada as any counterargument. It's not
good enough to claim that a site which is supported by a
great number of legal authorities, and provides a wealth of
information to lawyers, and links to legal findings and state
statutes, is less competent that you, simply because of
your 'opinion' that it is. Again, I suggest ANYONE look at
http://www.law.com/
and its legal assets in
http://www.law.com/service/aboutlaw.html
And try to tell me that this is not a site which is possessed
of more legal expertise than dirt ever dreamed of having.
This is a site not maintained by amateurs, but by
professional lawyers, offering services to other lawyers.
It is well neigh as respected a source as any government
maintained site. Dirt doesn't like the internet, since it
always proves him wrong. I can understand that.
> So, PV, does legal intent require 'desire'? I think we killed that one
> a long time ago.
>
ROTFLMAO... you looked up 'intent' in that same law
dictionary, and you now hope to divert THIS argument
into another of your 'descents into insanity.' Stick to
mitigating circumstances, sport. You already have one
mental ball too many in the air as it is.
> You really should stop relying on any old website Google spews out at
> you, PV. More often than not, they're a load of old wank.
>
Sure they are... When weighed against your legal
acumen, which determined that 'defense' is the OPPOSITE
of 'protection.' What drives that masochistic streak
in you, that is determined to make you look more
ignorance with each post? Remember that you've already
ADMITTED that you might have 'intellect' but you lack
'knowledge.'
> >
> >So once again, you're simply full of shit. But I know you'll
> >simply complain that what does any old 'law dictionary know'?
> >You know better. The 'doctrine of mitigation' is quite a bit
> >more broad than you'd wish to confine it to, Ham Man.
> >Like your mens rea argument, where you claimed it could
> >ONLY be a 'criminal mind,' and I clearly showed it could
> >ALSO be 'criminal intent.' And your rather stupendously
> >stupid claim that 'defense' is the OPPOSITE of 'Protection.'
> >You've never allowed reason to interfere with your blindness
> >or penetrate that thick skull of yours.
>
> What a great big heap of smelly PV arse grapes. Show me a quote where
> I said the mens rea was a 'criminal mind', and I'll remind you how
> thoroughly spanked you were when I spelt out to you in GREAT BIG RED
> LETTERS how it is a complete nonsense to describe mens rea as
> 'criminal intent', since such a definition is wholly circular.
>
Actually, dirt, denial is what is circular. The words DIRECTLY
say 'criminal intent.' Trying to put a different face on that
EXACT phrase is certainly a circular effort intending to
circumvent a rather clear, and totally precise TWO WORDS.
I remember your circular attempt to avoid that by saying --
"mens rea is not criminal intent, PV, it is mens rea " I
am reminded of how circular that particular comment is.
It is similar to saying "water is not H2O, PV, it is water."
ROTFLMAO.
> Pull your socks up you ****ing imbecile. Stick to something you're
> good at - like moralistic pontificating.
>
It's positively delightful to watch you gyrate in hysteria, when
shown to be an ignoramus. I will tell you what you've said
in the past, which rather sums up your argument in every case
of law -- "PV, I quite frankly do not give a flying **** what your
silly thickies law dictionary is prefaced by." In other words,
your argument rests solely on YOUR silly opinion in the face
of all proof to the contrary. But we already knew that... didn't
we? We're just going through deja vu here.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 03:27:18 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> >
> >> It is a nonsense to claim that Japan having a low murder rate PROVES
> >> that the DP in the US has nothing to do with high murder rates. It
> >> merely shows that this is probably not the case in Japan.
> >>
> >ROTFLMAO. It is a nonsense to claim that the U.S. having
> >a high murder rate is CAUSED by the DP, when another
> >nation also having the DP has the LOWEST murder rate.
>
> Thick? Oh yes.
>
> You are boring me profusely with you inane misconstruction of
> everything put to you.
>
I know how frustrating it must be for you to be confounded
by fact. Nonetheless, there it is. Japan = DP Japan =
Lowest murder rate. U.S. = DP U.S. = High murder rate.
No correlation to DP causing a high murder rate. Have to
look elsewhere.
> The US undoubtedly a violent society. I can see no reason why the
> infliction of violence by the state should have any effect to reduce
> this culture of violence. If anything, common sense says it will
> reinforce it. That is my point, so you may jump around and claim that
> I believe the DP directly causes murder if you like, because you're a
> ****ing nutter and no-one reads your shit anyway.
>
You may have no reason to believe anything. As you did
with claiming an 'opinion' can make 'should' become 'is,'
in your simplistic stupidity claiming opinion that 'should'
makes 'The DP is murder' true. You may believe in Santa
Claus for all I care. Nonetheless, common sense
DOES NOT lend ANY credence to your opinion. Rather,
common sense and the data on which we base such
common sense leads us to a contradiction of your opinion.
And I love it when you become hysterical.
> <snipped pointless rant about fictitious comments>
>
> >
> >> You really must learn how to examine evidence and reach conclusions,
> >> because, quite frankly, you're piss poor at it.
> >>
> >Yeah, right. I think I'm about to pee laughing again. Examine
> >the EVIDENCE -- Japan - DP -- Japan - LOWEST murder rate.
> >U.S. - DP -- U.S. HIGH murder rate. Proof of DP effect on
> >murder rate -- zero.
>
> SPAG! YOU ****ING THICK SPAG!
>
ROTFLMAO. Hysteria reigns supreme when dirt is confronted
with FACT.
> This is your comment to which my reply was made:
>
> "The fact of this entire thread -- that the DP and an elevated
> murder rate CANNOT be connected -- is PROVEN by the FACT
> of Japan."
>
> You claim that Japan PROVES the DP cannot have a catalyst effect on
> murder rates. I have not claimed that anything PROVES my claim that it
> might in the US.
>
I can now guess you have never heard of proof by
contradiction? Like your 'the DP is murder,' argument,
you may hold an opinion on anything. Even the most
absurd. But when viewed with the PROOF of a different
set of conditions arising from your opinion, it is recognized
that your opinion is flawed. You're now saying that
you're just taking a 'wild guess' that they are connected,
in the U.S. murder rate, in spite of evidence that there
is no such connection. It's all just more opinionated
horseshit from you, and you now even agree it is.
And yes, Japan does prove that the DP cannot have a
catalytic effect on murder rates. Think of two glasses
of water. One clear, one polluted. Think of ink as the
DP. We pour ink into both glasses. Regardless of how
polluted the one is, the ink could not be responsible for
the initial pollution. If now the clear glass does not
demonstrate a change in color, it is proven that it has
NOT contributed to further pollution in the already polluted
glass. This is not rocket science, dirt. If the DP were
responsible for an elevated murder rate, it would show
up in Japan, in relation to at least ONE other country.
It does not. It HAS the DP, and it also HAS the lowest
murder rate.
What form of proof we use in this particular case is
proof by contradiction. TO PROVE something it must
exist in ALL circumstances, under ALL conditions. Ir
must meet the condition of 'is,' not 'I wish it was.' It
does NOT exist in Japan, thus it cannot be connected.
AS A CONCEPT. One can look at this in the case
of the Common Market as well. Completely independent
from any view of the U.S. There we have a higher
rate of murder, then exists in Japan, WITHOUT the DP.
It is absurd to claim a connection might exist between
the DP and the murder rate. What is strange, is that
so many hold up the absence of the DP in Europe as
PROOF that abolition reduces the murder rate, yet
when confronted with PROOF to the contrary suddenly
begin digging foxholes. If we totally disconnect an
examination of the U.S. use of the DP, I could well make
an opinionated case that the LACK of the DP has caused
an elevated murder rate in Europe, when compared to
Japan. Divorced from the elevated murder rate in the U.S.
there would appear to be an argument for USING it in
Europe. That's why your argument is so silly. Because
I do not try to make such a case.
> Again, I reiterate - you really must learn to absorb and evaluate
> evidence. Read more slowly, and think at a more leisurely pace, PV.
> Think about what evidence you are producing or criticising - is its
> effect to prove, disprove or simply offer an alternative explanation?
>
I HAVE PROVEN (or rather, Japan has proven) through
contradiction, that a statement such as 'the DP is
responsible for an elevated murder rate,' cannot be seen
as having a factual basis. It CANNOT be proven because
of proof to the contrary.
> Allow me to assist you: The fact that the US has a high murder rate
> and Japan a low one proves only that the DP per se does not have a
> direct and inevitable catalyst effect on said murder rates.
Quite right... and I'm glad you now agree.
> That is
> all. It does not PROVE in any way, shape or form that the DP in the US
> does not contribute towards the culture which causes your disgraceful
> homicide rate.
You claim it is proven per se, but that doesn't prove it
otherwise?? Have you lost all your senses?
> Lesson over. Try again.
>
Yeah, right. I just love it.. The DP per se does not have
an effect on the murder rate. But the DP does have an effect
on the U.S. murder rate. Do you have any idea how
moronic you look?
PV
BTW -- My arm is very tired -- but -- spank...spank...spank.
> w00f
>
>
>
St.George
"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 20:46:47 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> <clumsy fumbling snipped>
>
> >>
> >Ah... so you AGREE that they can prosecute for the
> >lesser offense if they wish. Isn't that the whole point here?
>
> No. The point here is that mitigating circumstances in law affect only
> the level of sentence imposed, not the crime committed.
>
> >They do so because of mitigating circumstances.
>
> No, they prosecute the lesser offence because of prosecutorial
> discretion, anticipating that mitigating circumstances will inevitably
> lower any sentence imposed anyway.
>
> It is not the operation of the doctrine of mitigation which is the
> cause for this. Patently not.
>
> <PV being wrong snipped>
>
> >"Who was James Boswell?"
>
> I told you, the French teacher off Grange Hill. Or was that Bronson?
Yes it was Bronson. I wondered what you were talking about
> Fuck it anyway. Zammo's a skag head.
Indeed. Do you remember when someone spray-painted the playground wall with
the message 'Zammo chases the dragon'?
Mrs. McCluskey was well pissed off.
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:97r8cu4miomng9gm8...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 03:27:18 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> >
>> >> It is a nonsense to claim that Japan having a low murder rate PROVES
>> >> that the DP in the US has nothing to do with high murder rates. It
>> >> merely shows that this is probably not the case in Japan.
>> >>
>> >ROTFLMAO. It is a nonsense to claim that the U.S. having
>> >a high murder rate is CAUSED by the DP, when another
>> >nation also having the DP has the LOWEST murder rate.
>>
>> Thick? Oh yes.
>>
>Well... I'm glad you finally recognized your failing.
>
>> You are boring me profusely with you inane misconstruction of
>> everything put to you.
>>
>I know how frustrating it must be for you to be confounded
>by fact. Nonetheless, there it is. Japan = DP Japan =
>Lowest murder rate. U.S. = DP U.S. = High murder rate.
>No correlation to DP causing a high murder rate. Have to
>look elsewhere.
Erm, actually not.
Although your usual thickie misconstruction means you should deserve
nothing more than a piss take, I'm in quite a studious mood tonight,
PV, so I might even give you some figures.
Let's take the US. Let us split your nation of overweight simpletons
into to broad groups - the twenty five states with the highest rates
of murder (per capita, BTW), and the twenty five states with the
lowest murder rates. The top half and the bottom half, so to speak.
Let us observe with wonder how only two of your misguided states which
do not kill their own people feature in the top half of the list. Let
me repeat that for your rather poorly endowed mind - only two of the
twelve states without the DP feature in the top half of the national
murder rates league table.
Seems to me that the states which have the DP also have the highest
murder rates. It appears there might be some correlation.
Japan is a quite different culture to your own, PV, and the DP will
have quite a different impact on it than it does in the US. This is
what I have said all along, despite your silliness.
As I said, the DP per se (you might want to look it up given your
obvious misunderstanding of it in this thread) might not be a catalyst
for murder, but when mixed with the rather backward culture of the US,
it certainly appears to be.
<snipped utter, utter wank>
.
>>
>Yeah, right. I just love it.. The DP per se does not have
>an effect on the murder rate. But the DP does have an effect
>on the U.S. murder rate.
Yup, that's about it.
> Do you have any idea how
>moronic you look?
For me to 'look' moronic, it would be necessary that two hurdles be
overcome:
1- It would be necessary that I be wrong. This is most unlikely, since
I am rarely wrong.
2- It would be necessary that someone other than you and I were
reading this thread. This is perhaps even more unlikely than [1].
Never mind. As Rennie quite correctly pointed out, you suffer from a
serious lack of self-esteem, which is patently displayed by your
_need_ to argue with me, but constantly post as if the posts actually
directed at me were for the benefit of others.
>
>BTW -- My arm is very tired -- but -- spank...spank...spank.
>
Yes PV, spank spank spank indeed. Spank spank spank. You keep on
telling yourself that. Ooo. Stop it. My bottom hurts.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
I doubt they will. No one is reading here, PV. If they did they would
realise quite clearly that it is a simpleton's effort at a legal
dictionary.
>and try to tell me that this is a site which has less credibility
>than dirt. Then look at THEIR definition of 'mitigating
>circumstances' as opposed to dirt's pathetic words that
>"This is a defence, PV." It's totally hilarious. In addition to
>my having provided a legal cite. This is just monstrously
>delicious to have pinned you so neatly, yet again, to that
>wall of stupidity you seem to find enjoyable.
No, PV. This is criminal defence:
pp276-436 Clarkson & Keating - Criminal Law: Text and Materials (Sweet
& Maxwell 1998). I have urged you to get this excellent book (written
by my old Crim Law teacher, BTW). You don't seem to have saved up
enough yet.
If you seriously expect me to expend any sort of effort explaining to
you the intricacies of what is a defence after your laughable attempt
to understand how a person cannot 'intend to rape', you are much
mistaken. Nevertheless, I shall have a quick go at educating you.
>
>> There is quite simply no need for me to go off scrabbling around for
>> some quote, any quote to reinforce this in the manner you have - my
>> original one was crystal clear.
>>
>
>Of course not... your 'word' is as good as 'gold,' here. ROTFLMAO.
>
>> [mitigation] "where a defendant whose guilt is not in dispute proves
>> facts tending to reduce the damages or punishment to be awarded
>> against him."
>>
>I do not deny that ALSO meets the definition of 'mitigation.'
Twat.
Mitigation is mitigation. That's all. It is not a defence, because
that is what a _defence_ is.
Are we learning yet?
>I have shown that OTHER definitions meet that criteria.
>It is simply not good enough to contend that yours is
>the SUM TOTAL and COMPLETE meaning of that term
>within the limits of the Law. I have provided PROOF to the
>contrary that the definition encompasses a much broader
>range.
Erm, no you haven't. You have misconstructed the doctrines of defence
and the practice of prosecutorial discretion.
Back to learning about evidence for you, PV.
> In point of fact, it is not necessary that a DEFENDANT
>prove those facts. That would be a defense -- 'an affirmative
>defense.'
LOL
You get better, spagboy. Who argues for the mitigating circumstances
to be taken into account? His Mum? Santa? The judge?
> If they are self-evident in the penalty phase,
>as conditions or happenings which would be considered out
>of mercy or fairness, they are considered along with
>aggravating circumstances to determine the proper penalty.
>Without the defendant having to 'prove them' as your
>definition stipulates.
You seem to be a little confused as to the workings of an adversarial
justice system, PV.
The court takes into account in sentencing what it is asked to take
into account during sentencing.
>>
>> >
>> >Why don't you just admit that your argument is not based
>> >on factual evidence that mitigating circumstance cannot
>> >decide the degree of the offence charged? It's silly to
>> >pursue this because you can offer nothing which would
>> >DISPROVE these facts. Certainly offering proof that it
>> >can reduce penalties does not prove that it cannot also
>> >determine the degree of the offense for which charged.
>>
>> You should have learned by now PV.
>>
>
>I have. You will NEVER learn to extract your head from
>your ass.
>
>> The doctrine of mitigation is a legal concept. Thus I afford it its
>> legal meaning, as you should do when using it in the context of the
>> law.
>
>Yes, and mitigating circumstances in the context of the
>law are --
>"n. in criminal law, conditions or happenings which do not
>excuse or justify criminal conduct, but are considered out
>of mercy or fairness in deciding the degree of the offense
>the prosecutor charges or influencing reduction of the
>penalty upon conviction. Example: a young man shoots
>his father after years of being beaten, belittled, sworn at
>and treated without love. "Heat of passion" or "diminished
>capacity" are forms of such mitigating circumstances."
Ooooooooooo deeeeeeaaaaaaar.
"Defences can be broadly classed into two groups - those that provide
an excuse to the defendant's conduct, and those that justify his
conduct" (C&K p277)
A defence affects the mens rea of an offence - MC affect the degree to
which a defendant should be punished. By its very definition, an
'excuse' which serves to reduce a crime to a less heinous one is a
defence, which is why you're getting so confused over this diminished
responsibility thing: a proper legal grounding would have taught you
that this is indeed a defence, by reason of the fact I note above. A
mitigating circumstance does not affect mens rea.
Your confusion is understandable, however. After all, you are a bit
thick, and this is where things get a bit beyond you I am afraid:
"Where a defendant is suffering from "diminished responsibility" he
will have a partial defence to murder and will instead be convicted of
manslaughter - again giving the court the necessary flexibility of
sentence.
Although it is only a defence to murder and thus not a general
defence, because of its close nexus to the defence of insanity, the
partial defence of diminished responsibility is discussed as a general
defence."
(C&K p 709)
DR is a _partial defence_, PV, and that's where you're getting
confused. It may only be claimed to reduce murder to manslaughter. But
because it implies a different standard of mens rea, a defence it is
nonetheless. There is an excellent chapter on it in Clarkson & Keating
which I believe you should read, because I think I 've just about done
my bit now to aid your development
Now, it's time to stop using such unreliable sources as 'law.com'
(ahem), Blacks Law Dictionary (giggle) and a whole host of
misinterpreted state statutes as you struggle to understand the
complexities of law. Get an undergraduate text book and read it - that
way you won't make such a cock out of yourself, and you might actually
understand things more.
<snipped PV getting his lacy pink panties in a twist bcause he doesn't
know what diminished responsibility is>
Extracted from the big pile of sloppy wank I have taken the liberty of
snipping here are two points I should like to comment upon.
1- Lawyers don't use law dictionaries - they are for wannabes
2- Your yada yada yada about the credentials of 'law.com' (tee hee)
does not seem to explain why it is so wrong on intent. Perhaps you
might wish to elaborate.
You're thick as pig shit, PV, and you should have learnt by now...Just
enough rope. That's what I always say.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:51:01 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> >news:97r8cu4miomng9gm8...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 03:27:18 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snipped>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> It is a nonsense to claim that Japan having a low murder rate PROVES
> >> >> that the DP in the US has nothing to do with high murder rates. It
> >> >> merely shows that this is probably not the case in Japan.
> >> >>
> >> >ROTFLMAO. It is a nonsense to claim that the U.S. having
> >> >a high murder rate is CAUSED by the DP, when another
> >> >nation also having the DP has the LOWEST murder rate.
> >>
> >> Thick? Oh yes.
> >>
> >Well... I'm glad you finally recognized your failing.
> >
> >> You are boring me profusely with you inane misconstruction of
> >> everything put to you.
> >>
> >I know how frustrating it must be for you to be confounded
> >by fact. Nonetheless, there it is. Japan = DP Japan =
> >Lowest murder rate. U.S. = DP U.S. = High murder rate.
> >No correlation to DP causing a high murder rate. Have to
> >look elsewhere.
>
> Erm, actually not.
>
obvious hate for it - as he hates his own country as well
snipped>
> Seems to me that the states which have the DP also have the highest
> murder rates. It appears there might be some correlation.
>
There certainly is. The correlation is that those States
having the highest murder rates have lobbied effectively
through their legislatures to 'get tough on crime.'
Whether it works or not, is totally immaterial, since it
CANNOT work in a negative direction, which is your
implication. Wait a minute --- I got it!!! Maybe it's
baseball! I mean the Japanese and the U.S. BOTH play
baseball, and BOTH have the DP. Europe doesn't play
baseball. Let's make THAT connection. Maybe we
can get government funding for a study. Maybe it's not
'baseball per se,' but the U.S. brand of baseball which
"when mixed with the rather backward culture of the US"
creates that high murder rate. When we start with 'maybe,'
while there is evidence to the contrary, we open up a
whole new vista of possibilities... ALL OF THEM CRAP.
The only REAL evidence you could provide to even begin
to support such an opinion would be to present meaningful,
long-term data which showed that the SAME society
experienced a long-term DROP in the murder rate AFTER
abolishing the DP. So let's abolish baseball in the U.S.,
and see if our murder rate drops. You moron. You need
the SAME set, examined before and after the change to
arrive at even a hint of a conclusion, of how such a change
has affected the set. I think you'll find just the opposite is
in evidence, with many nations experiencing a long-term
RISE, or no significant change in the murder rate after
abolishing the DP. But I'm sure this principle, where we
examine the effect of some change, is going 'zing,' right
over your pointy head.
> Japan is a quite different culture to your own, PV, and the DP will
> have quite a different impact on it than it does in the US. This is
> what I have said all along, despite your silliness.
>
No, sport. Your implication is that the DP CONTRIBUTES
to violence in society. It's hogwash, and you're again trying
to extract yourself from an untenable argument by making
some rather crude assumptions. You have no evidence
whatsoever that it will have a different impact in different
societies. Societies, in and of themselves have different
cultures. But the DP, is the DP. If you claim IT has an
effect, that effect must be felt in those different cultures to
SOME extent, or you're just blowing smoke. You cannot
pick and choose the environment you wish to claim it will
show a negative impact, when it's obvious that another
environment has NOT shown such an impact.
> As I said, the DP per se (you might want to look it up given your
> obvious misunderstanding of it in this thread) might not be a catalyst
> for murder, but when mixed with the rather backward culture of the US,
> it certainly appears to be.
>
And Santa Claus 'might' exist.' But other than that connection,
your 'conclusion' based on your 'opinion,' is absurd. And I
am well aware of what per se means, but obviously YOU
don't. And it's not the first time you've shown an inadequate
grasp of the English Language, when I think of 'defense.'
> <snipped utter, utter wank>
> .
> >>
> >Yeah, right. I just love it.. The DP per se does not have
> >an effect on the murder rate. But the DP does have an effect
> >on the U.S. murder rate.
>
> Yup, that's about it.
>
I figured your argument was about that strong.
> > Do you have any idea how
> >moronic you look?
>
> For me to 'look' moronic, it would be necessary that two hurdles be
> overcome:
>
> 1- It would be necessary that I be wrong. This is most unlikely, since
> I am rarely wrong.
>
ROTFLMAO. One word -- Russia. Another word -- Defense.
Shit... I have a bunch of them I could cite.
> 2- It would be necessary that someone other than you and I were
> reading this thread. This is perhaps even more unlikely than [1].
>
My job is not to pander to a reader base. It is simply to
confront stupidity when I see it, for MY OWN benefit. I
see it with you. I'll remark on it, even if we are the only two
reading our posts. Of course, it's nice that others have
recognized your lack of knowledge as well.
> Never mind. As Rennie quite correctly pointed out, you suffer from a
> serious lack of self-esteem, which is patently displayed by your
> _need_ to argue with me, but constantly post as if the posts actually
> directed at me were for the benefit of others.
>
ROTFLMAO -- 'I' suffer from self-esteem. My boy... you define
that affliction. You suffer from self-esteem taken to its
ultimate conclusion -- self-loathing.
> >
> >BTW -- My arm is very tired -- but -- spank...spank...spank.
> >
>
> Yes PV, spank spank spank indeed. Spank spank spank. You keep on
> telling yourself that. Ooo. Stop it. My bottom hurts.
>
And you keep on telling yourself that you can define where
the DP affects the murder rate and where it doesn't. Jesus..
can you possibly see how stupid such a conclusion is???
It lends itself to ALL possibilities, even in the face of
evidence to the contrary. Like maybe baseball is
responsible. ROTFLMAO.
PV
PS --- You really need to stay within arguments which
can connect with 'land rights ownership law.' When you
leave that area, you become hopelessly confused.
>
> w00f
>
>
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<god_save_t...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Showing your age, boys. I fuckin' _grew_up_ on Grange Hill. And I'm an
old cunt. So there.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
simpleton.
> >and try to tell me that this is a site which has less credibility
> >than dirt. Then look at THEIR definition of 'mitigating
> >circumstances' as opposed to dirt's pathetic words that
> >"This is a defence, PV." It's totally hilarious. In addition to
> >my having provided a legal cite. This is just monstrously
> >delicious to have pinned you so neatly, yet again, to that
> >wall of stupidity you seem to find enjoyable.
>
> No, PV. This is criminal defence:
>
No, dirt this is stupidity... on YOUR part.
> pp276-436 Clarkson & Keating - Criminal Law: Text and Materials (Sweet
> & Maxwell 1998). I have urged you to get this excellent book (written
> by my old Crim Law teacher, BTW). You don't seem to have saved up
> enough yet.
>
> If you seriously expect me to expend any sort of effort explaining to
> you the intricacies of what is a defence after your laughable attempt
> to understand how a person cannot 'intend to rape', you are much
> mistaken. Nevertheless, I shall have a quick go at educating you.
>
Once again, hoping to divert from having been shown to be
ignorant of 'mitigating circumstances.'
> >
> >> There is quite simply no need for me to go off scrabbling around for
> >> some quote, any quote to reinforce this in the manner you have - my
> >> original one was crystal clear.
> >>
> >
> >Of course not... your 'word' is as good as 'gold,' here. ROTFLMAO.
> >
> >> [mitigation] "where a defendant whose guilt is not in dispute proves
> >> facts tending to reduce the damages or punishment to be awarded
> >> against him."
> >>
> >I do not deny that ALSO meets the definition of 'mitigation.'
>
> Twat.
>
Idiot.
> Mitigation is mitigation. That's all. It is not a defence, because
> that is what a _defence_ is.
>
> Are we learning yet?
>
Yeah.. it's deja vu... with your 'It's water, not H20, PV. It's water.'
> >I have shown that OTHER definitions meet that criteria.
> >It is simply not good enough to contend that yours is
> >the SUM TOTAL and COMPLETE meaning of that term
> >within the limits of the Law. I have provided PROOF to the
> >contrary that the definition encompasses a much broader
> >range.
>
> Erm, no you haven't. You have misconstructed the doctrines of defence
> and the practice of prosecutorial discretion.
>
No, dear... it is YOU who is confused -- You'll not escape
using silly terms such as 'doctrine' and 'practice.' Doctrines
are 'what IS practiced.'
Quite clearly I've provided a cite, two definitions and a
State Criminal Statute. Texas Law, A Michigan Appeals
Court cite, and definitions from Black's Law Dictionary,
and another from an internet site maintained by and for
lawyers and legal sourcing.
Again -- Black's Law Dictionary -- Definition and cite --
"Mitigating circumstances which will reduce degree of
homicide to manslaughter are the commission of the
killing in a sudden heat of passion caused by adequate
legal provocation. (People v. Morris 31 Michigan Appeals
Report 301, 187 North Western Reporter 2d 434, 438.)"
"MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES --
n. in criminal law, conditions or happenings which do
not excuse or justify criminal conduct, but are considered
out of mercy or fairness in deciding the degree of the
offense the prosecutor charges or influencing reduction
of the penalty upon conviction."
And
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe001200.html#pe001.12.01
§ 12.44. Reduction of State Jail Felony Punishment to Misdemeanor Punishment
(a) A court may punish a defendant who is convicted of a state
jail felony by imposing the confinement permissible as punishment
for a Class A misdemeanor if, after considering the gravity and
circumstances of the felony committed and the history, character,
and rehabilitative needs of the defendant, the court finds that
such punishment would best serve the ends of justice.
(b) When a court is authorized to impose punishment for a lesser
category of offense as provided in Subsection (a), the court may
authorize the prosecuting attorney to prosecute initially for the
lesser category of offense.
Now, I'll add a few more nails in your coffin. The
first most definitively --
We have the case of Louise Woodward, the British
au pair convicted of 2nd degree murder,
who immediately had her conviction changed by the
judge to one of manslaughter, because of mitigating
circumstances -- See
http://www.cnn.com/US/9711/10/au.pair.pm/
And to add another -- From Edinburgh --
Mr David Hainsworth appeared at court in Edinburgh,
Friday 6th June, charged with the attempted murder
of his 82-year old cancer-ridden father. He later
walked free from the court with a two-year probation
order after the judge heard heart-rending letters
of forgiveness from his brother, mother and uncle.
Mercy killing has again been viewed leniently by
the courts in Scotland.
Mr Hainsworth pleaded guilty to a reduced charge
of assaulting his father with intent to smother him
with a pillow.
See how a judge heard mitigating evidence and allowed
a plea to a LESSER CHARGE.
And then see http://www.lacoa2.org/35226ka.pdf
This is a State of Louisiana, Court of Appeals ruling
regarding mitigating circumstances resulting in a
reduced charge from burglary to simple burglary.
How many more does it take, sport?
> Back to learning about evidence for you, PV.
>
Back to learning about proof for you, dirt.
> > In point of fact, it is not necessary that a DEFENDANT
> >prove those facts. That would be a defense -- 'an affirmative
> >defense.'
>
> LOL
>
> You get better, spagboy. Who argues for the mitigating circumstances
> to be taken into account? His Mum? Santa? The judge?
>
What an idiot. They are examined in the sentencing phase.
Do you think the defendant 'argues' mitigation when the
jury is sequestered determining such sentencing? If they
are 'argued' they are argued by the members of the jury
weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances to come
to an agreement on the sentence. Do you think that if a
defendant decides NOT to take the stand in his own
defense, and has pleaded 'not guilty' that there can BE
NO 'mitigating circumstances' to consider, because he
has not 'argued' them? That's some strange law you have
in that quaint little village you come from. For proof of
THIS, I would refer you to the State of Oklahoma Uniform
Jury Instructions Provided by the Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals -- see
http://www.occa.state.ok.us/datafiles/legal/Oklahoma/ouji/criminal/OUJI-CR%204-7
8.html
To quote --
"JURY'S DETERMINATION OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Mitigating circumstances are those which, in fairness, sympathy,
and mercy, may extenuate or reduce the degree of moral
culpability or blame. The determination of what circumstances
are mitigating is for you to resolve under the facts and
circumstances of this case.
While all twelve jurors must unanimously agree that the
State has established beyond a reasonable doubt the
existence of at least one aggravating circumstance prior
to consideration of the death penalty, unanimous agreement
of jurors concerning mitigating circumstances is not required.
In addition, mitigating circumstances do not have to be
proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order for you to
consider them."
See how the JURY DETERMINES what circumstances are
mitigating?
> > If they are self-evident in the penalty phase,
> >as conditions or happenings which would be considered out
> >of mercy or fairness, they are considered along with
> >aggravating circumstances to determine the proper penalty.
> >Without the defendant having to 'prove them' as your
> >definition stipulates.
>
> You seem to be a little confused as to the workings of an adversarial
> justice system, PV.
>
Hardly, sport. You're confused in general.
> The court takes into account in sentencing what it is asked to take
> into account during sentencing.
>
No shit!! And that means????
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Why don't you just admit that your argument is not based
> >> >on factual evidence that mitigating circumstance cannot
> >> >decide the degree of the offence charged? It's silly to
> >> >pursue this because you can offer nothing which would
> >> >DISPROVE these facts. Certainly offering proof that it
> >> >can reduce penalties does not prove that it cannot also
> >> >determine the degree of the offense for which charged.
> >>
> >> You should have learned by now PV.
> >>
> >
> >I have. You will NEVER learn to extract your head from
> >your ass.
> >
> >> The doctrine of mitigation is a legal concept. Thus I afford it its
> >> legal meaning, as you should do when using it in the context of the
> >> law.
> >
> >Yes, and mitigating circumstances in the context of the
> >law are --
> >"n. in criminal law, conditions or happenings which do not
> >excuse or justify criminal conduct, but are considered out
> >of mercy or fairness in deciding the degree of the offense
> >the prosecutor charges or influencing reduction of the
> >penalty upon conviction. Example: a young man shoots
> >his father after years of being beaten, belittled, sworn at
> >and treated without love. "Heat of passion" or "diminished
> >capacity" are forms of such mitigating circumstances."
<snipped dirt desperately trying to regain his composure,
after seeing how silly his understanding of mitigating
circumstances is>
I will not subject the reader to slogging through his turgid
prose, which rivals his claim that we should -all pity
murderers'- and that -opinion can replace fact, if you
try hard enough-
Simply -- can ANYONE believe that 'heat of passion' is not a
mitigating circumstance? That is of course, what dirt
argues. It seems that mitigating circumstances do not
EXIST in 'dirt law.' There is only 'defense.' Similar to
another poster's belief that 'factual innocence' cannot be
proven. Unfortunately, dirt confuses even defense, having
claimed it is the OPPOSITE of 'protection.' Thus, I can
well understand how he has confused mitigating
circumstances as not connected to 'defense.'
> You're thick as pig shit, PV, and you should have learnt by now...Just
> enough rope. That's what I always say.
>
Tell me again how "Water is not H20, PV. It is water."
If that's what you know about mens rea, we can certainly
view the rest of your thoughts as simple garbage. No wonder
I found you to be 'opposite man' from your very first posts.
PV
> w00f
St.George
<snip>
> Why is that so unlikely? Are you presuming that one cannot
> demonstrate racist tendencies toward their own race? I hate
> to resurrect this, but YOU certainly provided a racist remark
> sometime back about 'Whites.' Implying they (and you of
> course by definition) are "inferior to other breeds of homo
> sapiens."
You're a toerag fuckface, PV.
I have _never_ said this, and yet you put it into double quotemarks
indicating a VERBATIM quote.
Do it again and I'll rip off your head and piss in the hole.
A Planet Visitor
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:JLJw8.276694$K52.43...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Why is that so unlikely? Are you presuming that one cannot
> > demonstrate racist tendencies toward their own race? I hate
> > to resurrect this, but YOU certainly provided a racist remark
> > sometime back about 'Whites.' Implying they (and you of
> > course by definition) are "inferior to other breeds of homo
> > sapiens."
>
>
> I have _never_ said this, and yet you put it into double quotemarks
> indicating a VERBATIM quote.
>
> Do it again and I'll rip off your head and piss in the hole.
>
We live and die by our OWN words, Mark. You certainly DID
say EXACTLY that... and I'll quote the entire context --
"Whites are the most mediocre race on the planet. They
excel at nothing, and are physically, mentally, emotionally,
philosophically and culturally inferior to other breeds of
homo sapiens."
You will find your EXACT words in
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22inferior+to+other+breeds+of+homo%22+group:
alt.activism.death-penalty+author:George&hl=en&selm=9eusn0%24hu0%241%40newsg1.sv
r.pol.co.uk&rnum=1
The thread is "Subject: Re: ARIZONA - Innocent on death
row" Date: 2001-05-28 18:06:46 PST. In fact, I did not
COPY your words, I clipped and pasted them.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrnacdbm8.24e7....@lievre.voute.net...
> Le Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:04:35 +0100, St.George
<god_save_t...@yahoo.co.uk> a écrit :
>
> >> Why is that so unlikely? Are you presuming that one cannot
> >> demonstrate racist tendencies toward their own race? I hate
> >> to resurrect this, but YOU certainly provided a racist remark
> >> sometime back about 'Whites.' Implying they (and you of
> >> course by definition) are "inferior to other breeds of homo
> >> sapiens."
>
>
> Harsh, but fair. Reading the four posts from Earl, that are currently
> sitting on my newsserver, I am reminded again of why PV fears him so
> much. I could flatter myself that he slavishly responds to each of my
> posts for the same reason ... but it's possible that in my case, he does
> so because he thinks _I'm_ a ****face.
>
ROTFLMAO... Fear Earl!!! Seeing as how he doesn't have
the slightest idea what exists outside of his microscope,
that's fairly hilarious. But of course, the latter part of your
comment is a truism. Nonetheless, you both rather kneejerked
since the words ARE THERE -- See Mark's post in google --
Subject: Re: ARIZONA - Innocent on death row"
Date: 2001-05-28 18:06:46 PST
And from that little tidbit, we can now understand why YOU
don't archive YOUR comments. Afraid of stepping on your
dick once too often, perhaps?
> Do I care ?
>
> > I have _never_ said this, and yet you put it into double quotemarks
> > indicating a VERBATIM quote.
>
> Double quotation marks do not indicate a 'verbatim quote [sic]',
> Mark. They represent incorrect usage of quotation marks, that's all.
>
They do to me... and that's why they WERE in doublt-quotes.
> > Do it again and I'll rip off your head and piss in the hole.
>
> Oh, I like that ? Can I use it ?
>
You can if you wish to make an ass of yourself.
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |DP SUPPORTER #1
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
<09ox8.65515$nc.94...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
<...............>
Guilt consists of
-the deed and the damage, in the worst case one or more dead victims, and
-deliberation, intention, premediation, a malice aforethought, or at least a
profound negligence concerning as forseeable as grave consequences going
along with the acting.
Mitigating circumstances address the second aspect. The damage is constant
and fix, but the GUILT can be seen in a grade-wise light depending upon the
intensity of the second ingredience, because it is fully *necessary* to
constitute guilt.
Hence MC do not necessarily reduce the charge. They however anytimes reduce
CULPABILITY, as the ABILITY for CULPA in the first place. So one should note
in this context the validity of remorse as a mitigating circumstance, too:
Remorse if deemed genuine points at an afterwards gained insight in the
crime's gravity, which - just for the occurance of remorse - obviously was
not given at the timepoint when the crime was committed.
J.
JIGSAW1695
>From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@noos.fr
>Date: 4/24/2002 1:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <slrnacdpm3.25d0....@lievre.voute.net>
>
>Le Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:01:40 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Harsh, but fair. Reading the four posts from Earl, that are currently
>>> sitting on my newsserver, I am reminded again of why PV fears him so
>>> much.
>
>
>> ROTFLMAO...
>
>... and of why the only response we could have expected, is a weak (and
>barely credible) 'ROTFLMAO'.
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Double quotation marks do not indicate a 'verbatim quote [sic]',
>>> Mark. They represent incorrect usage of quotation marks, that's all.
>
>> They do to me... and that's why they WERE in doublt-quotes.
>
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#
============================
"kdsgure zr lkoiziu pphdy-taf ... :-)".
Dezi, you said "kdsgure zr lkoiziu pphdy-taf ... :-)".
I think that even the most liberal reader on this NG will find your comments
highly inflammatory and most objectional. I would not be at all surpised if the
Cyber Patrol enforcers ban you for a year.
Son, you just cant say this...even on the net.
Jigsaw
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
Could it be that in Japan no advertisement is made in favor of executions,
like done for instant via US-media coverage, up to talk shows inviting any
condemned for to present the dead man to Joe Public, still alive for afew
days? Could it be that Japanese citizens are informed merely after an
execution, by a one-liner in the NP?
IMHO: While in the US the DP has a most insane effect and purpose in Japan
it obtains a plain null-function.
J.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>I HAVE PROVEN (or rather, Japan has proven) through
>contradiction, that a statement such as 'the DP is
>responsible for an elevated murder rate,' cannot be seen
>as having a factual basis. It CANNOT be proven because
>of proof to the contrary.
>
aPV is in use to argument in view of the high American murder rate despite
the DP, that the murder rate without the DP could only raise. (He feels
comfortable with this argument, while he right in this thread claimed
null-impact of the DP on murder rates, besides)
I'm using exactly his argument now by speculating about a possibly even
farther drop of the low Japanese murder rate by abolition of the DP in
Japan.
(I do not really believe so, I think in Japan would happen exactly zero. The
only purpose is to show the invalidity of the argument, in both the
modifications. Thus,: "I HAVE PROVEN....."?? ....exactly nothing. )
J.
dirtdog
<god_save_t...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snipped>
>
>
>
>Indeed. Do you remember when someone spray-painted the playground wall with
>the message 'Zammo chases the dragon'?
Nope. Quite wrong.
The message read 'Zammo chased the dragon and got a smack in the
face'. Never has a childrens programme matched the sheer wit of this
legendary statement.
And you call yourself an Englishman.
>
>Mrs. McCluskey was well pissed off.
She was one foxy bitch.
I bet she went like a fucking train.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped PV refusing to accept that his 2 povvy sources have got him
into trouble and hoping their reproduction for the third time will
help him bluff his way out of my magnificent logic>
>
>Now, I'll add a few more nails in your coffin. The
>first most definitively --
>We have the case of Louise Woodward, the British
>au pair convicted of 2nd degree murder,
>who immediately had her conviction changed by the
>judge to one of manslaughter, because of mitigating
>circumstances -- See
>http://www.cnn.com/US/9711/10/au.pair.pm/
Tee hee
Once again, tee hee.
Is the poverty of your argument such that you now produce _news
reports_ as legal authority?
Ask yourself this, PV. How many times have you heard on the news that
a company has gone 'bankrupt'? If you would like, I should be pleased
to produce some cites for you.
A news report provides fuck all authority I'm afraid.
Next...
>
>And to add another -- From Edinburgh --
>
>Mr David Hainsworth appeared at court in Edinburgh,
>Friday 6th June, charged with the attempted murder
>of his 82-year old cancer-ridden father. He later
>walked free from the court with a two-year probation
>order after the judge heard heart-rending letters
>of forgiveness from his brother, mother and uncle.
>Mercy killing has again been viewed leniently by
>the courts in Scotland.
>Mr Hainsworth pleaded guilty to a reduced charge
>of assaulting his father with intent to smother him
>with a pillow.
>
>See how a judge heard mitigating evidence and allowed
>a plea to a LESSER CHARGE.
Oh dear.
You will find your story recounts little of how the charge was
reduced. In fact, the word 'mitigation' isn't even used. You must
really be scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
I think you'll probably find this to be the exercise of prosecutorial
discretion.
BTW, no cite. Thus your story, containing no logic becomes simple
anecdote.
And I think you mean 'evidence of mitigating circumstances'.
>
>And then see http://www.lacoa2.org/35226ka.pdf
>This is a State of Louisiana, Court of Appeals ruling
>regarding mitigating circumstances resulting in a
>reduced charge from burglary to simple burglary.
ROTFLMAO. You are _simple_.
"Defendant obtained a significant reduction in sentencing exposure
when the State reduced the charge to simple burglary and agreed not to
charge him as a habitual offender."
Prosecutorial discretion my wannabe friend. Learn about it and how it
differs from mitigation.
Again, LOL. You simple fuckwit. Do you mind if I do my 'PV is simple'
dance?
>
>How many more does it take, sport?
Oh, just one, but it's got to be better than these.
After they have been put to it by the defendant.
The jury determines who is guilty or not guilty, PV - it is the
arbiter of fact. By convincing a jury, the Defendant proves the
mitigating circumstances. This may simply be proved on the balance of
probabilities, but nonetheless, the Defendant must convince the jury
that such circumstances existed.
It really doesn't take a fucking genius.
<snipped PV trying to be smug at his splendid non-point>
>
>> The court takes into account in sentencing what it is asked to take
>> into account during sentencing.
>>
>No shit!! And that means????
That the jury takes into account what is put to it - mitigating
factors from the defence, and any relevant aggravating factors from
the prosecution.
And actually, if you seek some form of quote which says a prosecutor
may put forward mitigating circumstances, you would be better off
looking at the English justice system, under which prosecutors have a
duty to act _fairly_, unlike your rather backward and entirely
adversarial system.
And that's about it.
Snipped the part of my post which most disproved your fatally flawed
babblings. I am now satisfied that you know you have lost.
Diminished responsibility is a defence, PV, as you are now aware.
Presumably you have snipped because your trawl of Google simply
reinforced my words.
Defences can affect mens rea, reduce culpability and as a result,
affect which offence a defendant has committed
Mitigating factors at law simply affect sentence. They are, as you
quity correcly say, considered in the interests of mercy, but have no
bearing on mens rea. Therefore, MC do not reduce the level of an
offence, but anticipation of their effect on sentence may cause a
prosecutor to opt for a lesser charge as a _policy_ (i.e. not legal)
decision. Nevertheless, the cause of this is the prosecutor, not the
mitigating circumstance.
<snipped bollocks>
I know you enjoy the lessons, PV. It's just that you're an unruly
pupil. If I wasn't scared your Mum would want to chew on my piece, I'd
ask her to come ion to discuss your behaviour.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:aa6prs$imb$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
hysterically about? Mitigating circumstances most CERTAINLY
HAVE reduced the charge. And definitions, court rulings and
State statutes substantiate that. One need only look at the U.S.
case of Louise Woodward, the British au pair -- see
http://www.cnn.com/US/9711/10/au.pair.pm/
She was CONVICTED of 2nd Degree Murder, and the judge
REDUCED, not the penalty, but the actual crime for which
convicted, to Manslaughter. He did so because, in his
ruling, he wrote "I believe that the circumstances in which
the defendant acted were characterized by confusion,
inexperience, frustration, immaturity, and some anger
but not malice in the legal sense supporting a conviction
for second-degree murder." Do you see the mention of
'remorse' entering into those mitigating circumstances
that the judge decided?
Now, apologize nicely. Because when you follow dirt...
well.... you just follow dirt.
PV
> J.
A Planet Visitor
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
>
> >I HAVE PROVEN (or rather, Japan has proven) through
> >contradiction, that a statement such as 'the DP is
> >responsible for an elevated murder rate,' cannot be seen
> >as having a factual basis. It CANNOT be proven because
> >of proof to the contrary.
> >
>
> aPV is in use to argument in view of the high American murder rate despite
> the DP, that the murder rate without the DP could only raise. (He feels
> comfortable with this argument, while he right in this thread claimed
> null-impact of the DP on murder rates, besides)
>
logic. Why would you presume I'd need to use YOUR
arguments which rest on hysteria and opinion?
> I'm using exactly his argument now by speculating about a possibly even
> farther drop of the low Japanese murder rate by abolition of the DP in
> Japan.
>
You may certainly do so. But the converse is more obvious.
Perhaps Europe should REINSTATE the DP, since Japan
has a murder rate lower than ANY European State. If we are
going to argue 'what if' then it makes a lot more sense to
presume that reinstating the DP will reduce the murder rate
in EUROPE, than any belief that eliminating the DP in Japan
will reduce that murder rate in Japan even further. What we
need to argue, is not 'what if,' but 'what IS.'
> (I do not really believe so, I think in Japan would happen exactly zero. The
> only purpose is to show the invalidity of the argument, in both the
> modifications. Thus,: "I HAVE PROVEN....."?? ....exactly nothing. )
>
As usual.. When have you EVER proven anything?
PV
> J.
>
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:01:40 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Harsh, but fair. Reading the four posts from Earl, that are currently
> >> sitting on my newsserver, I am reminded again of why PV fears him so
> >> much.
>
>
> > ROTFLMAO...
>
> ... and of why the only response we could have expected, is a weak (and
> barely credible) 'ROTFLMAO'.
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Mark. They represent incorrect usage of quotation marks, that's all.
>
> > They do to me... and that's why they WERE in doublt-quotes.
>
>
when I demonstrate that you've said what you later deny
saying, that it seems to have washed over into denial of
what others say, when I demonstrate that they've said it.
What you SHOULD be doing is apologizing to me for even
suspecting that I used double-quotes without having
clipped and pasted the EXACT words. You DO ADMIT
NOW that mine was an accurate and exact quote from
Mark, don't you? I mean YOU'VE been spanked by me
so often, with YOUR EXACT words, that you should know
better. And pedantically pointing out a typing error does
nothing but hope to impress with your secretarial skills,
as other have pointed out.
PV
> { snip }
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |HRNKOV KVWZMGRX #1
A Planet Visitor
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >
>
> Could it be that in Japan no advertisement is made in favor of executions,
> like done for instant via US-media coverage, up to talk shows inviting any
> condemned for to present the dead man to Joe Public, still alive for afew
> days? Could it be that Japanese citizens are informed merely after an
> execution, by a one-liner in the NP?
>
anti-DP radicals such as yourself would never have it, claiming
it is 'brutalization' to something or other.
> IMHO: While in the US the DP has a most insane effect and purpose
> in Japan
> it obtains a plain null-function.
>
As I've said... you may have any 'opinion' you wish. Just
do not presume that it might infringe upon fact, or the truth.
PV
> J.
>
>
>
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
Jürgen: "Hence MC do not necessarily reduce the charge."
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
>"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>news:aa6rra$bs3$06$1...@news.t-online.com...
>>
>> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>> >
>>
>> Could it be that in Japan no advertisement is made in favor of
executions,
>> like done for instant via US-media coverage, up to talk shows inviting
any
>> condemned for to present the dead man to Joe Public, still alive for afew
>> days? Could it be that Japanese citizens are informed merely after an
>> execution, by a one-liner in the NP?
>>
>Which is how it should be in the U.S. as well... but hysteric,
>anti-DP radicals such as yourself would never have it, claiming
>it is 'brutalization' to something or other.
>
>> IMHO: While in the US the DP has a most insane effect and purpose
>> in Japan
>> it obtains a plain null-function.
>>
>As I've said... you may have any 'opinion' you wish. Just
>do not presume that it might infringe upon fact, or the truth.
>
Fact is, that alot of nice US-guys and gals are cheerishing the violence
lying in the DP. Fact, perceivable all along.
J.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
>"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>news:aa6tbk$bcg$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
>>
>> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>>
>>
>> >I HAVE PROVEN (or rather, Japan has proven) through
>> >contradiction, that a statement such as 'the DP is
>> >responsible for an elevated murder rate,' cannot be seen
>> >as having a factual basis. It CANNOT be proven because
>> >of proof to the contrary.
>> >
>>
>> aPV is in use to argument in view of the high American murder rate
despite
>> the DP, that the murder rate without the DP could only raise. (He feels
>> comfortable with this argument, while he right in this thread claimed
>> null-impact of the DP on murder rates, besides)
>>
>Of course I feel comfortable with an argument that rests on
>logic. Why would you presume I'd need to use YOUR
>arguments which rest on hysteria and opinion?
The "argument" is purely speculative.
>
>> I'm using exactly his argument now by speculating about a possibly even
>> farther drop of the low Japanese murder rate by abolition of the DP in
>> Japan.
>>
>You may certainly do so. But the converse is more obvious.
>Perhaps Europe should REINSTATE the DP, since Japan
>has a murder rate lower than ANY European State. If we are
>going to argue 'what if' then it makes a lot more sense to
>presume that reinstating the DP will reduce the murder rate
>in EUROPE, than any belief that eliminating the DP in Japan
>will reduce that murder rate in Japan even further. What we
>need to argue, is not 'what if,' but 'what IS.'
>
>> (I do not really believe so, I think in Japan would happen exactly zero.
The
>> only purpose is to show the invalidity of the argument, in both the
>> modifications. Thus,: "I HAVE PROVEN....."?? ....exactly nothing. )
>>
>As usual.. When have you EVER proven anything?
>
Well, Sir, perhaps we can argue about issues bearing any share of
subjectivity. Here we are discussing logics. Take note, because I'm not goin
g to repeat a stringent conclusion.
You are *claiming* no positive correlation of the DP to the high murder
rate, merely using the *improvability* of an negative impact of the DP on
the level of violence. Then just this improvability makes impossible to
derive anything from the low Japanese murder rate to the DP.
J.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:47:40 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped PV refusing to accept that his 2 povvy sources have got him
> into trouble and hoping their reproduction for the third time will
> help him bluff his way out of my magnificent logic>
> >
>
> >Now, I'll add a few more nails in your coffin. The
> >first most definitively --
> >We have the case of Louise Woodward, the British
> >au pair convicted of 2nd degree murder,
> >who immediately had her conviction changed by the
> >judge to one of manslaughter, because of mitigating
> >circumstances -- See
> >http://www.cnn.com/US/9711/10/au.pair.pm/
>
> Tee hee
>
> Once again, tee hee.
>
> Is the poverty of your argument such that you now produce _news
> reports_ as legal authority?
>
the crime of 2nd degree murder. The Judge reduced
the CRIME to manslaughter. And in his finding WROTE --
"I believe that the circumstances in which the defendant
acted were characterized by confusion, inexperience,
frustration, immaturity, and some anger but not malice
in the legal sense supporting a conviction for second-degree
that I've provided over and over to you... but everyone now
sees that you're main problem is that you're a blind
concrete-head. Get ready for that stake...
> Ask yourself this, PV. How many times have you heard on the news that
> a company has gone 'bankrupt'? If you would like, I should be pleased
> to produce some cites for you.
>
> A news report provides **** all authority I'm afraid.
>
> Next...
>
Not quite --
The stake in your heart is at hand. And to further drive
that stake, I will now provide the State Supreme Court ruling,
SJC-07635, which upheld the actions taken by the Judge
(Judge Hiller B. Sobel) in that case... See --
http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/decision.html
This not a news report, but the text of the ruling of that
Supreme Court.
The prosecutor SOUGHT, and OBTAINED a conviction
on the charge of 2nd Degree murder. The Judge then
CHANGED the CRIME for which the jury had found
Woodward guilty to Manslaughter. His finding was
worded EXACTLY as I've reported, above. There is no
question that he changed the CHARGE because of what
he saw as mitigating circumstances.
> >
> >And to add another -- From Edinburgh --
> >
> >Mr David Hainsworth appeared at court in Edinburgh,
> >Friday 6th June, charged with the attempted murder
> >of his 82-year old cancer-ridden father. He later
> >walked free from the court with a two-year probation
> >order after the judge heard heart-rending letters
> >of forgiveness from his brother, mother and uncle.
> >Mercy killing has again been viewed leniently by
> >the courts in Scotland.
> >Mr Hainsworth pleaded guilty to a reduced charge
> >of assaulting his father with intent to smother him
> >with a pillow.
> >
> >See how a judge heard mitigating evidence and allowed
> >a plea to a LESSER CHARGE.
>
> Oh dear.
>
Oh, dear, indeed. dirt has been pinned to the bottom of that
coffin yet again.
> You will find your story recounts little of how the charge was
> reduced. In fact, the word 'mitigation' isn't even used. You must
> really be scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
>
> I think you'll probably find this to be the exercise of prosecutorial
> discretion.
>
> BTW, no cite. Thus your story, containing no logic becomes simple
> anecdote.
>
When have you ever provided a 'cite' that would DISPUTE
that a person meeting all the criteria to be charged with
a specific crime, cannot be charged with a reduced crime,
because of mitigating circumstances? It's all smoke and
mirrors for you, while I'M providing the evidence.
> And I think you mean 'evidence of mitigating circumstances'.
>
More pathetic scrambling... having been shown that his 'legal
expertise' is now in the toilet.
> >
> >And then see http://www.lacoa2.org/35226ka.pdf
> >This is a State of Louisiana, Court of Appeals ruling
> >regarding mitigating circumstances resulting in a
> >reduced charge from burglary to simple burglary.
>
> ROTFLMAO. You are _simple_.
>
> "Defendant obtained a significant reduction in sentencing exposure
> when the State reduced the charge to simple burglary and agreed not to
> charge him as a habitual offender."
>
> Prosecutorial discretion my wannabe friend. Learn about it and how it
> differs from mitigation.
>
Don't be such a shit... when you're beaten, be man enough
to admit it.
> Again, LOL. You simple ****wit. Do you mind if I do my 'PV is simple'
> dance?
Is that perhaps your 'death spiral' dance?
Mitigating circumstances MAY provide the impetus
for any 'discretion' on the part of the prosecution. When
they do they are simply 'mitigating circumstances' that
have provided a reason for prosecutorial discretion.
And I can always tell when you get hysterical, dirt. It
happens when you've been aced out, and you begin your
rants, offering nothing more.
> >
> >How many more does it take, sport?
>
> Oh, just one, but it's got to be better than these.
>
I think I'll give a lot more than one, if you just follow
along.
Not actually... Here is what you said --
[mitigation] "where a defendant whose guilt is not in dispute proves
facts tending to reduce the damages or punishment to be awarded
against him."
You claim the defendant 'proves' facts. Actually the most
he can do is 'present' facts. Whether they are PROVEN
or not, lies in the determination of the jury.
> The jury determines who is guilty or not guilty, PV - it is the
> arbiter of fact.
Of course they do. Why do you always state the
obvious? That has nothing to do with the argument.
It's obvious from the cite I've provided that they also
determine sentences in a great number of cases.
And from that cite, you'll find that being that 'arbiter
of fact,' THEY determine what is 'proven,' not the
DEFENDANT.
> By convincing a jury, the Defendant proves the
> mitigating circumstances. This may simply be proved on the balance of
> probabilities, but nonetheless, the Defendant must convince the jury
> that such circumstances existed.
>
> It really doesn't take a ****ing genius.
>
Proving only that you aren't one, because you STILL don't
get it.
> <snipped PV trying to be smug at his splendid non-point>
> >
> >> The court takes into account in sentencing what it is asked to take
> >> into account during sentencing.
> >>
> >No shit!! And that means????
>
> That the jury takes into account what is put to it - mitigating
> factors from the defence, and any relevant aggravating factors from
> the prosecution.
>
Ah... so it's the JURY that determines what is 'proven' and
NOT the defendant. But in your 'definition,' you said it was
the defendant. Of course, your definition, in any case, only
provided a limited meaning of mitigating circumstances.
While my various definitions all incorporated the meaning
as it REALLY is, including the possibility of a reduction in
the crime for which charged.
> And actually, if you seek some form of quote which says a prosecutor
> may put forward mitigating circumstances, you would be better off
> looking at the English justice system, under which prosecutors have a
> duty to act _fairly_, unlike your rather backward and entirely
> adversarial system.
>
TRANSLATION -- "I can't provide any proof of my words, as
you've done over and over. But trust me. You're wrong and
I'm right." ho ho ho. Unfortunately for you, presenting your
LIMITED view of mitigating circumstances will not suffice,
faced with the ton of proof facing you.
Your silly comment was clipped. Quite purposely, because
as usual it said NOTHING, and meant NOTHING other than
to confuse a rather simple concept. It had NOTHING to
do with mitigating circumstances. But that's what those
who 'fetch toilet paper for barristers,' do.
> Diminished responsibility is a defence, PV, as you are now aware.
> Presumably you have snipped because your trawl of Google simply
> reinforced my words.
>
Why, oh why, do you continue on that meaningless path?
When so much proof to the contrary exists? Just for one
small example see - http://www.priory.com/psych/diminshe.htm
"The jury or judge would simply be required to decide whether the
murder occurred and as there would not be legislated sentence
the judge would then take evidence of diminished responsibility
or any other mitigating circumstances into account when
deciding the sentence"
Can you POSSIBLY see how 'diminished responsibility' is ONE
of those 'mitigating circumstances'?
Or look at the Law Reform Commission Report 82. " The
Defence of Diminished Responsibility."
" It has been held that the fact that an offender suffers from a
mental disorder or an intellectual disability may be taken into
account as a mitigating factor when sentencing that offender:
see, for example, R v Smith (1958) 75 WN (NSW) 198;
R v Masolatti (1976) 14 SASR 124; R v Skipper (1992) 64
A Crim R 260."
Then look at
http://www.un.org/icty/Supplement/supp26-e/todorovic.htm
This is the Trial Chamber for the United Nations International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Case Number
IT-95-9/1-S Against Stevan Todorovic. You will find that
even this tribunal recognizes that diminished responsibility
is a mitigating circumstance. Quoting --
"MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
The Trial Chamber then reviewed the mitigating circumstances
and found that four factors in this case could be considered in
mitigation of sentence, i.e. the accused's guilty plea, his
substantial co-operation with the prosecution, his expressed
remorse for his crimes and the question of his allegedly
diminished mental capacity."
And then we have the case of Andrea Yates, where it is argued
that post-natal depression was diminished responsibility which
formed a mitigating circumstances. And in the article I provide,
from non-other than the BBC, it was mentioned that Courts in
the UK have been know to accept post-natal depression as
mitigating circumstances when sentencing women for crimes.
Such would certainly be claimed as diminished responsibility.
See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1400000/1400262.stm
I actually have a ton of cites that connect diminished responsibility
(called diminished capacity in the U.S. usually), to mitigating
circumstances. But it's getting very old, and you are obviously
too slow a student. You need to first enter a remedial institution
before you try the hard stuff.
Simply put -- One cannot DIVORCE mitigating circumstances from
diminished responsibility whatever you might call it.
> Defences can affect mens rea, reduce culpability and as a result,
> affect which offence a defendant has committed
>
> Mitigating factors at law simply affect sentence. They are, as you
> quity correcly say, considered in the interests of mercy, but have no
> bearing on mens rea. Therefore, MC do not reduce the level of an
> offence, but anticipation of their effect on sentence may cause a
> prosecutor to opt for a lesser charge as a _policy_ (i.e. not legal)
> decision. Nevertheless, the cause of this is the prosecutor, not the
> mitigating circumstance.
>
Read the cites. It's obvious you know nothing of what
you're talking about.
> <snipped bollocks>
>
<obscenity clipped proving dirt is desperate to avoid admitting
he has his head so far up his ass, it would take hitching it to
the space shuttle at launch to extract it.>
> w00f
>
>
>
>
Just passing by
> We have the case of Louise Woodward, the British
> au pair convicted of 2nd degree murder,
> who immediately had her conviction changed by the
> judge to one of manslaughter, because of mitigating
> circumstances -- See
> http://www.cnn.com/US/9711/10/au.pair.pm/
>
Yes but the "mitigating circumstances", if truth be known, were that
Judge Zobel, recognizing that his own errors were partly responsible
for what was surely the most perverse verdict in history, went as far
as he could to minimize the damage whilst keeping his verdict appeal
proof.
Zobel certainly knows she didn't do it, as does anyone who bothers to
study the evidence which shows it to be, quite literally,
scientifically impossible for her to be guilty of anything. Even the
moronic jurors know it - they admitted afterwards that not one of them
really believed her to be guilty of what they convicted her of, but
couldn't bring themselves to acquit because they didn't want to upset
the prosecutors and/or the Eappens. And one juror, Tracy Mannix, said
she didn't believe Louise was guilty but convicted her because other
jurors bullied her into it.
Nowhere else in the developed world would such a case even have
reached a court. Come to think of it, I can't think of even any third
world country where someone can be convicted after the prosecution
case has been comprehensively disproved beyond doubt, beyond argument
and with such complete scientific certainty.
A Planet Visitor
There is no 'fact' contained in your simplistic rant. It's
simply another hugely irrelevant raving, based on nothing
but your opinion. I could well call you a M-L, for your
obvious leanings toward having 'pity' for someone who
has MURDERED.
PV
> J.
A Planet Visitor
PV: "Yes MC DID reduce the charge."
Here is the State Supreme Court ruling, SJC-07635,
which upheld the actions taken by the Judge
(Judge Hiller B. Sobel) in that case... See --
http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/decision.html
This not a news report, but the text of the ruling of that
Supreme Court.
The prosecutor SOUGHT, and OBTAINED a conviction
on the charge of 2nd Degree murder. The Judge then
CHANGED the CRIME for which the jury had found
Woodward guilty to Manslaughter. His finding was
worded EXACTLY
There is no
question that he changed the CHARGE because of what
he saw as mitigating circumstances.
the judge gave as his first reason for the reduction that
"the circumstances in which [Woodward] acted were
characterized by confusion, inexperience, frustration,
immaturity and some anger, but not malice (in the
legal sense) supporting a conviction for second degree
murder."
You will also notice at the bottom of this ruling that there
are at least 10 separate cases where a jury found guilty
to a greater crime, and the judge reduced the finding of
guilty to a LESSER crime.
PV
A Planet Visitor
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >
> >"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> >news:aa6tbk$bcg$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
> >>
> >> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >>
> >>
> >> >I HAVE PROVEN (or rather, Japan has proven) through
> >> >contradiction, that a statement such as 'the DP is
> >> >responsible for an elevated murder rate,' cannot be seen
> >> >as having a factual basis. It CANNOT be proven because
> >> >of proof to the contrary.
> >> >
> >>
> >> aPV is in use to argument in view of the high American murder rate
> despite
> >> the DP, that the murder rate without the DP could only raise. (He feels
> >> comfortable with this argument, while he right in this thread claimed
> >> null-impact of the DP on murder rates, besides)
> >>
> >Of course I feel comfortable with an argument that rests on
> >logic. Why would you presume I'd need to use YOUR
> >arguments which rest on hysteria and opinion?
>
> The "argument" is purely speculative.
>
your arguments.
> >
> >> I'm using exactly his argument now by speculating about a possibly even
> >> farther drop of the low Japanese murder rate by abolition of the DP in
> >> Japan.
> >>
> >You may certainly do so. But the converse is more obvious.
> >Perhaps Europe should REINSTATE the DP, since Japan
> >has a murder rate lower than ANY European State. If we are
> >going to argue 'what if' then it makes a lot more sense to
> >presume that reinstating the DP will reduce the murder rate
> >in EUROPE, than any belief that eliminating the DP in Japan
> >will reduce that murder rate in Japan even further. What we
> >need to argue, is not 'what if,' but 'what IS.'
> >
> >> (I do not really believe so, I think in Japan would happen exactly zero.
> The
> >> only purpose is to show the invalidity of the argument, in both the
> >> modifications. Thus,: "I HAVE PROVEN....."?? ....exactly nothing. )
> >>
> >As usual.. When have you EVER proven anything?
> >
>
> Well, Sir, perhaps we can argue about issues bearing any share of
> subjectivity. Here we are discussing logics. Take note, because I'm not goin
> g to repeat a stringent conclusion.
>
Well, Sir... perhaps we can argue about you claiming that
we must 'pity' those who murder? That's obviously a
subjective opinion. So perhaps you can tell me why you
feel we have a responsibility to apologize to someone who
has murdered? Try to keep it unemotional and logical, and
tell me where in the Justice System we might find that
word in respect to the actions necessary to hold toward a
murderer, which incorporate the word 'pity'?
> You are *claiming* no positive correlation of the DP to the high murder
> rate, merely using the *improvability* of an negative impact of the DP on
> the level of violence. Then just this improvability makes impossible to
> derive anything from the low Japanese murder rate to the DP.
>
I am stating clearly that there is no positive correlation of
the DP to a higher murder rate. The proof of this lies in the
fact that such a correlation would necessarily need to be
demonstrated across the entire spectrum of those using
the DP, to even 'BEGIN' to offer any argument that this
positive correlation exists. Since it is an attempt to correlate
the DP ITSELF, to a high murder rate, and not differing
cultures of some society. And even finding such a correlation
would STILL not prove the point, since EVERY society having
a high murder rate, may have found it necessary to place
the DP into the penalties provided for murder BECAUSE of
those previously existing high murder rates. As I've said
before. The ONLY argument that could hold ANY logical
water, would be a LONG-TERM examination of the SAME
society, that has abolished the DP. It would be necessary
to show a distinct long-term high murder rate while the DP
was used, and a distinct long-term low murder rate after it
was abolished. And I believe, if I put my mind to it, I could
demonstrate just the opposite. That abolishing the DP
causes a slight elevation in the murder rate, even in those
societies having a low murder rate to begin with, which
formed the principle that the DP was unnecessary to
begin with.
You may 'believe' anything you wish, using your opinion.
But do not try to put such an opinion to any 'scientific
test,' because it does not fly. Personally, I am convinced
that the lack of the DP has created a slight increase in
the murder rate in many European countries. But I
certainly do not claim it passes any 'scientific test,'
simply because Japan has the DP and a low murder rate.
It's all smoke and mirrors, and you are well aware of that
fact.
PV
> J.
A Planet Visitor
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21b1da28.02042...@posting.google.com...
Sure, sport... and the Martians are coming next week.
PV
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
Where is the magic word, PV?
A lack of malice under the State in question's definition of murder
meant that in law, the necessary mens rea for the offence of murder
was not satisfied.
This has sod all to do with mitigating circumstance. It has everything
to do with the offence of murder not having been committed due to the
requisite mental state not being present. As I have told you quite
eloquently, a mitigating factor is one irrelevant to a defendant's
guilt.
Thus the verdict was plainly manslaughter.
> Exactly within the parameters of the definition
>that I've provided over and over to you... but everyone now
>sees that you're main problem is that you're a blind
>concrete-head. Get ready for that stake...
>
>> Ask yourself this, PV. How many times have you heard on the news that
>> a company has gone 'bankrupt'? If you would like, I should be pleased
>> to produce some cites for you.
>>
>> A news report provides **** all authority I'm afraid.
>>
>> Next...
>>
>Not quite --
>The stake in your heart is at hand. And to further drive
>that stake, I will now provide the State Supreme Court ruling,
>SJC-07635, which upheld the actions taken by the Judge
>(Judge Hiller B. Sobel) in that case... See --
>http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/decision.html
>This not a news report, but the text of the ruling of that
>Supreme Court.
Are you having a laugh? This is the 'stake through my heart'?
In the entire judgement you speak of, PV, the word mitigation is used
only _once_ in a footnote dealing with some constitutional issues far
removed from what we are discussing here. Perhaps you might want to
actually read it.
Shall I tell you why it was not used? The offence for murder was
reduced to manslaughter because Woodward did not have the mental
element (that's mens rea, BTW) necessary for murder. The downgrading
of the offence had sod all to do with mitigating factors.
And I presume you meant Judge Zobel.
>The prosecutor SOUGHT, and OBTAINED a conviction
>on the charge of 2nd Degree murder. The Judge then
>CHANGED the CRIME for which the jury had found
>Woodward guilty to Manslaughter. His finding was
>worded EXACTLY as I've reported, above. There is no
>question that he changed the CHARGE because of what
>he saw as mitigating circumstances.
Yes, it was worded as you state above, and mitigation was not
mentioned at all.
Tell me, are you just trolling now?
<snipped PV showing low self-esteem by _needing_ to respond to every
word put to him, even if those with only pointless posing>
>> >
>> >Mitigating circumstances are those which, in fairness, sympathy,
>> >and mercy, may extenuate or reduce the degree of moral
>> >culpability or blame. The determination of what circumstances
>> >are mitigating is for you to resolve under the facts and
>> >circumstances of this case.
>> >While all twelve jurors must unanimously agree that the
>> >State has established beyond a reasonable doubt the
>> >existence of at least one aggravating circumstance prior
>> >to consideration of the death penalty, unanimous agreement
>> >of jurors concerning mitigating circumstances is not required.
>> >In addition, mitigating circumstances do not have to be
>> >proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order for you to
>> >consider them."
>> >
>> >See how the JURY DETERMINES what circumstances are
>> >mitigating?
>>
>> After they have been put to it by the defendant.
>>
>Not actually... Here is what you said --
>[mitigation] "where a defendant whose guilt is not in dispute proves
>facts tending to reduce the damages or punishment to be awarded
>against him."
>
>You claim the defendant 'proves' facts. Actually the most
>he can do is 'present' facts. Whether they are PROVEN
>or not, lies in the determination of the jury.
What is you point?
Following that logic, the prosecutor does not have to 'prove' guilt,
he simply places facts before the jury who prove it themselves (!?!).
You are starting to sound like a silly old man. If the jury accepts
any party's version of events, that is, for the purpose of the law,
proven to them.
There is a presumption of innocence, not a presumption of mitigation.
Of course mitigating circumstances must be proven to a jury.
>
> > The jury determines who is guilty or not guilty, PV - it is the
>> arbiter of fact.
>
>Of course they do. Why do you always state the
>obvious? That has nothing to do with the argument.
>It's obvious from the cite I've provided that they also
>determine sentences in a great number of cases.
>And from that cite, you'll find that being that 'arbiter
>of fact,' THEY determine what is 'proven,' not the
>DEFENDANT.
Cuckoo.
<yada yada yada on pointless and thoroughly off key subject which PV
continues to argue in monologue over>
>> And actually, if you seek some form of quote which says a prosecutor
>> may put forward mitigating circumstances, you would be better off
>> looking at the English justice system, under which prosecutors have a
>> duty to act _fairly_, unlike your rather backward and entirely
>> adversarial system.
>>
>TRANSLATION -- "I can't provide any proof of my words, as
>you've done over and over. But trust me. You're wrong and
>I'm right." ho ho ho. Unfortunately for you, presenting your
>LIMITED view of mitigating circumstances will not suffice,
>faced with the ton of proof facing you.
Actually, PV, I don't feel the need to present pointless cites since I
am perfectly aware of how correct I am. I have no wish to prove it.
You may if you wish continue to get the wrong end of the stick from
low quality 'legal' resources and assume that reading a webpage gives
you a thorough understanding of an area of law which is barely brushed
in 300 odd pages of undergraduate textbook.
Yawn. My 'silly comment' was clipped because it entirely and with the
aid of logic, and even a well chosen quote, it demolished your attempt
to claim that the defence of diminished responsibility is a mitigating
circumstance.
>
>> Diminished responsibility is a defence, PV, as you are now aware.
>> Presumably you have snipped because your trawl of Google simply
>> reinforced my words.
>>
>Why, oh why, do you continue on that meaningless path?
>When so much proof to the contrary exists? Just for one
>small example see - http://www.priory.com/psych/diminshe.htm
>"The jury or judge would simply be required to decide whether the
>murder occurred and as there would not be legislated sentence
>the judge would then take evidence of diminished responsibility
>or any other mitigating circumstances into account when
>deciding the sentence"
>Can you POSSIBLY see how 'diminished responsibility' is ONE
>of those 'mitigating circumstances'?
LORDY!
Let's read the whole quote, you deceptive little wanker.
"There can be little doubt that there is a need for some reform
from the comments of judges in Australia and from the public
outcry when the media sensationalise a murderer " going
free" . Usually when the full facts are known the outcome of
the trial is very sensible . In Australia the most obvious suggestion
is to do away with the offence of murder and replace it with
Unlawful Homicide . The jury or judge would simply be required to
decide whether the murder occurred and as there would not be
legislated sentence the judge would then take evidence of
diminished responsibility or any other mitigating circumstances into
account when deciding the sentence . The problem is that
society would not accept this at this time in our development of
social conscience in Australia as many people like the idea of a
person who kills with the required intent to carry the label of
murderer for the rest of their life . There is little sympathy in
society for such people and society guards the use of the label
of murder as closely as they guard the concept of jury."
This quote:
1- Is not commenting on the law. It comments on a suggested amendment
to the law.
2- Is written by a fucking _psychiartrist_, who are not known for
their skills of legal interpretation.
3- Shows what a desperate fuckwit you become when you know you've been
led down the garden path by my good self.
The manner in which you present this load of old wank as a legal cite
is frankly, disgraceful.
>
>Or look at the Law Reform Commission Report 82. " The
>Defence of Diminished Responsibility."
>" It has been held that the fact that an offender suffers from a
>mental disorder or an intellectual disability may be taken into
>account as a mitigating factor when sentencing that offender:
>see, for example, R v Smith (1958) 75 WN (NSW) 198;
>R v Masolatti (1976) 14 SASR 124; R v Skipper (1992) 64
>A Crim R 260."
CLASSIC. You mean this report:
Report 82 (1997) - Partial Defences to Murder: Diminished
Responsibility
I see you managed to snip the first part of the report's name. I
wondered why no link was provided!!!!!
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/R82TOC
See in particular chapter 3.
Love it love it love it. The section, you quote, PV, speaks of mental
abnormalities falling short of DR!
I also like the way you left the case cites in, even though you
haven't the faintest clue what they say or why.
I don't think you've been caught with your pants round your ankles
this much since you provided me with a link to the part of the Geneva
Convention specifically excluding itself from applying to armed
combatants in justifying why Taliban prisoners were not POWS!
<Snipped further bullshit 'cites' which I really can't be arsed to
read>
PV, that's enough for you tonight. You can throw all the meaningless
irrelevant waffle and cites which actually _contradict_ you at me all
day if you so wish. I enjoy demolishing them.
It is just a shame that nobody will be reading this thread any more,
because if they had been following this very closely, they would
realise that for all your purported moral superiority, you're just a
lying, deceptive and dishonest stubborn fuckwit who doesn't know when
to stick to subjects he's good at.
The time to claim you were trolling is now.
w00f
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>>
>> lying in the DP. Fact, perceivable all along.
>>
>
>There is no 'fact' contained in your simplistic rant. It's
>simply another hugely irrelevant raving, based on nothing
>but your opinion. I could well call you a M-L, for your
>obvious leanings toward having 'pity' for someone who
>has MURDERED.
>
There have been examples over examples of people cheerishing the DP-violence
over and over right here, on AAD-P.
J.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.cl...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
Right there in front of you... Unfortunately, like your
understanding of the self of society, and defense, you
can't see any further than the tip of your nose.
> A lack of malice under the State in question's definition of murder
> meant that in law, the necessary mens rea for the offence of murder
> was not satisfied.
>
The mitigating circumstances, dirt. Those mitigating circumstances --
confusion, inexperience, frustration, immaturity, and some anger
but not malice. All you have is bullshit bubba, and you know it.
> This has sod all to do with mitigating circumstance. It has everything
> to do with the offence of murder not having been committed due to the
> requisite mental state not being present. As I have told you quite
> eloquently, a mitigating factor is one irrelevant to a defendant's
> guilt.
>
As I've told you quite eloquently... you're 'opposite man,'
and you're now spread a load of crap.
> Thus the verdict was plainly manslaughter.
>
The jury conviction was for the crime of murder. Mitigating
circumstances viewed by the judge, reduced the crime
to manslaughter. You realize of course that he did not
overturn any GUILTY verdict, he simply reduced the
CHARGE. Which was the totality of our original charge.
> > Exactly within the parameters of the definition
> >that I've provided over and over to you... but everyone now
> >sees that you're main problem is that you're a blind
> >concrete-head. Get ready for that stake...
> >
> >> Ask yourself this, PV. How many times have you heard on the news that
> >> a company has gone 'bankrupt'? If you would like, I should be pleased
> >> to produce some cites for you.
> >>
> >> A news report provides **** all authority I'm afraid.
> >>
> >> Next...
> >>
> >Not quite --
> >The stake in your heart is at hand. And to further drive
> >that stake, I will now provide the State Supreme Court ruling,
> >SJC-07635, which upheld the actions taken by the Judge
> >(Judge Hiller B. Sobel) in that case... See --
> >http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/decision.html
> >This not a news report, but the text of the ruling of that
> >Supreme Court.
>
> Are you having a laugh? This is the 'stake through my heart'?
>
Yes, my dear... and it must hurt. But you'll wiggle and
squirm, that's a given. You're like a nest of cockroaches.
Stomp on one, and another comes scurrying out of another
corner.
> In the entire judgement you speak of, PV, the word mitigation is used
> only _once_ in a footnote dealing with some constitutional issues far
> removed from what we are discussing here. Perhaps you might want to
> actually read it.
>
Geee... but there it was. Mitigation and circumstances.
Put together they spell --- 'dirt is screwed.'
> Shall I tell you why it was not used?
I have a feeling that you'll ineffectively try again!
>The offence for murder was
> reduced to manslaughter because Woodward did not have the mental
> element (that's mens rea, BTW) necessary for murder. The downgrading
> of the offence had sod all to do with mitigating factors.
>
Actually the downgrading had EVERYTHING to do with
mitigating circumstances. Those circumstances being
"confusion, inexperience, frustration, immaturity, and
some anger but not malice in the legal sense" In the
words of the Judge.
> And I presume you meant Judge Zobel.
>
That's the one. See how close the 'Z' and the 'S' key
are? If that, a failure to include a URL, and a bunch
of asterisks are your entire argument, you don't have
a chance. Oh, wait... that IS your entire argument.
Shall I start mentioning the dozen or so mistakes
you've made?
>
> >The prosecutor SOUGHT, and OBTAINED a conviction
> >on the charge of 2nd Degree murder. The Judge then
> >CHANGED the CRIME for which the jury had found
> >Woodward guilty to Manslaughter. His finding was
> >worded EXACTLY as I've reported, above. There is no
> >question that he changed the CHARGE because of what
> >he saw as mitigating circumstances.
>
> Yes, it was worded as you state above, and mitigation was not
> mentioned at all.
>
All circumstances are either mitigating or aggravating. They
certainly can have NO effect. If they do have no effect, then
they simply 'have no effect.' And play no part. But, the
circumstances mentioned HAD an EFFECT. And I doubt
whether the circumstances mentioned were aggravating.
Since the Judge changed the crime to a lesser crime.
Don't play stupid now.
<snipped pathetic whining about being stomped>
>
> >> >
> >> >Mitigating circumstances are those which, in fairness, sympathy,
> >> >and mercy, may extenuate or reduce the degree of moral
> >> >culpability or blame. The determination of what circumstances
> >> >are mitigating is for you to resolve under the facts and
> >> >circumstances of this case.
> >> >While all twelve jurors must unanimously agree that the
> >> >State has established beyond a reasonable doubt the
> >> >existence of at least one aggravating circumstance prior
> >> >to consideration of the death penalty, unanimous agreement
> >> >of jurors concerning mitigating circumstances is not required.
> >> >In addition, mitigating circumstances do not have to be
> >> >proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order for you to
> >> >consider them."
> >> >
> >> >See how the JURY DETERMINES what circumstances are
> >> >mitigating?
> >>
> >> After they have been put to it by the defendant.
> >>
> >Not actually... Here is what you said --
> >[mitigation] "where a defendant whose guilt is not in dispute proves
> >facts tending to reduce the damages or punishment to be awarded
> >against him."
> >
> >You claim the defendant 'proves' facts. Actually the most
> >he can do is 'present' facts. Whether they are PROVEN
> >or not, lies in the determination of the jury.
>
> What is you point?
>
My point is that you're totally confused as to who needs to
prove what.
<simpering whine clipped>
> >
> > > The jury determines who is guilty or not guilty, PV - it is the
> >> arbiter of fact.
> >
> >Of course they do. Why do you always state the
> >obvious? That has nothing to do with the argument.
> >It's obvious from the cite I've provided that they also
> >determine sentences in a great number of cases.
> >And from that cite, you'll find that being that 'arbiter
> >of fact,' THEY determine what is 'proven,' not the
> >DEFENDANT.
>
> Cuckoo.
>
Very good dirt... you're starting to learn. Self-analysis
always comes in handy.
> <yada yada yada on pointless and thoroughly off key subject which PV
> continues to argue in monologue over>
>
> >> And actually, if you seek some form of quote which says a prosecutor
> >> may put forward mitigating circumstances, you would be better off
> >> looking at the English justice system, under which prosecutors have a
> >> duty to act _fairly_, unlike your rather backward and entirely
> >> adversarial system.
> >>
> >TRANSLATION -- "I can't provide any proof of my words, as
> >you've done over and over. But trust me. You're wrong and
> >I'm right." ho ho ho. Unfortunately for you, presenting your
> >LIMITED view of mitigating circumstances will not suffice,
> >faced with the ton of proof facing you.
>
> Actually, PV, I don't feel the need to present pointless cites since I
> am perfectly aware of how correct I am. I have no wish to prove it.
>
TRANSLATION -- Oh, shit... same as last translation.
> You may if you wish continue to get the wrong end of the stick from
> low quality 'legal' resources and assume that reading a webpage gives
> you a thorough understanding of an area of law which is barely brushed
> in 300 odd pages of undergraduate textbook.
>
Whining left in this time. Does anyone see any SUBSTANCE
in dirt's current remark? If they do, please reply in a separate
post. All I see is denial, and some preening on his part that
we should 'take dirt's word that he knows better.' One can
hardly give much credence to someone who didn't know who
Boswell was, however.
Sure it did, dirt... You keep believing that... along with your
ignorance of the self of society. Oh, BTW, speaking of that
--- See
http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2001/documentation/commission/e-cn4-2001-16.htm
You'll see that the United Nations has declared that society
has a self, with the words -- "Racism then will be seen as an
attack on the "Self" of society and no longer as an affront to
the "Other". But seeing as how you don't know what racism
is, as well, I can see how you might still be confused.
I think we see WHO the 'deceptive little wanker is.' Note that
"the judge would then take evidence of diminished responsibility
or any other mitigating circumstances into account" Now, I
know your 'classical education,' has confused you... but stating
that MEANS that 'diminished responsibilities' are ONE OF
THOSE 'mitigating circumstances.' And it began with "Diminished Responsibility
(In the USA it is called Diminished Capacity) is
used to reduce the charge of Murder to Manslaughter." And
voila, Mitigating Circumstances (in this case Diminished
Responsibility) can reduce Murder to Manslaughter.. Which
was of course, to be proven, to show you are a legal nitwit.
How sweet it is!!!
> This quote:
>
> 1- Is not commenting on the law. It comments on a suggested amendment
> to the law.
Please... how pathetic.. It is written by someone much more
qualified than you to determine the meaning of words in
a legal context. It's absurd you to make such a
silly remark, when one realizes you could not carry the
legal briefcase of the one maintaining that web site.
Hell, I'm not sure he'd even LET YOU fill the toilet paper
dispenser. After all, you're only a 'glorified law clerk.'
And it is the terminology related in the URL, which is
called into play here, dirt. Because YOU have provided
NOTHING other than your big mouth... as usual.
>
> 2- Is written by a ****ing _psychiartrist_, who are not known for
> their skills of legal interpretation.
>
I can ALWAYS tell when you are becoming hysteric.
I can begin to see those cheeks start to swell, and that grunt
beginning.
> 3- Shows what a desperate ****wit you become when you know you've been
> led down the garden path by my good self.
>
Still hysteric, sport. Why not just admit defeat gracefully?
And now your eyes are bulging, and you're turning a
distinct shade of purple.
> The manner in which you present this load of old wank as a legal cite
> is frankly, disgraceful.
>
Just as I thought... pfttttttt -- another huge brainfart from you.
Nothing but your common reference to ****, ****wit,
and all those other neat little phrases which constitute
legal cites? Actually, I'm still waiting for you to provide
ANYTHING of substance... shit... even from the internet,
which would show you are anything more than mouth.
When can I expect your REAL argument to begin?
The thread is getting long, and so far I've seen nothing
from you.
> >
> >Or look at the Law Reform Commission Report 82. " The
> >Defence of Diminished Responsibility."
> >" It has been held that the fact that an offender suffers from a
> >mental disorder or an intellectual disability may be taken into
> >account as a mitigating factor when sentencing that offender:
> >see, for example, R v Smith (1958) 75 WN (NSW) 198;
> >R v Masolatti (1976) 14 SASR 124; R v Skipper (1992) 64
> >A Crim R 260."
>
> CLASSIC. You mean this report:
>
> Report 82 (1997) - Partial Defences to Murder: Diminished
> Responsibility
>
That's the one.
> I see you managed to snip the first part of the report's name. I
> wondered why no link was provided!!!!!
>
> http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/R82TOC
>
> See in particular chapter 3.
>
Well, I've put so many URL's in, forgive me for not clipping and
pasting that particular one in. But I certainly wasn't trying to
'hide' anything, since the only word that is in yours that isn't
in what I did put in, was the word 'partial.' A word that has
nothing to do with the connection I am making of 'diminished
responsibility' and 'mitigating circumstances.'
> Love it love it love it. The section, you quote, PV, speaks of mental
> abnormalities falling short of DR!
>
So what! The report does speak of legal concepts.
And we are examining the irrelevance of your claim that
'defense of diminished responsibility' is not a 'mitigating
circumstance.' I am disproving your claim, by showing
that it is. And I am in the process of ripping your argument
to shreds.
> I also like the way you left the case cites in, even though you
> haven't the faintest clue what they say or why.
>
What I'm showing sport, is not related to case cites. It is
related to 'diminished responsibility' being a 'mitigating
circumstance.' You've tried neatly to avoid that but failed.
For example in the very chapter you mention, chapter 3,
we have the following -- "3.24 If the offence/defence of
nfanticide is abolished, it is important that the defence of
diminished responsibility be retained to accommodate
cases now covered by the infanticide provisions. Such
cases, while rare, typically involve tragic circumstances
in which the offender kills with a significantly reduced
level of culpability, and is generally given a non-custodial
sentence. If both infanticide and the defence of diminished
responsibility were abolished, these offenders would
usually face conviction and sentence for murder. In the
Commission's view, given the strong mitigating
circumstances, such a result would be unconscionably
harsh."
Now, notice that 'it is important that the defence of diminished
responsibility be retained...." Then, note that this 'defence
of diminished responsibility is referred to as 'the strong
mitigating circumstances." Chee.... you just can't win, can
you... you lead me right to the point that proves you wrong.
<Typical... irrelevant whining clipped again.>
> PV, that's enough for you tonight. You can throw all the meaningless
> irrelevant waffle and cites which actually _contradict_ you at me all
> day if you so wish. I enjoy demolishing them.
>
I haven't seen anything but a lot of mouth, dirt... But I've
come to expect that. However, I also noted that you
clipped quite a bit of my post, which I thought rather
relevant... so let's put it back in, shall we??
Since one is from the U.N., and the other is Andrea
Yates.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> It is just a shame that nobody will be reading this thread any more,
> because if they had been following this very closely, they would
> realise that for all your purported moral superiority, you're just a
> lying, deceptive and dishonest stubborn ****wit who doesn't know when
> to stick to subjects he's good at.
>
Coming from you, opposite man, I can only take that as
a compliment. But we REALLY know who is lying, deceptive,
dishonest and pigheaded, don't we? And we can usually
count who's winning simply by looking at the number of
asterisks. When you get hysterical, and beat down, you
begin thinking you can win an argument using those
asterisks.
BTW - Another one -- think I'll just add one more every time
we post again. See -- http://www.xrefer.com/entry/466213
Quoting -- "Manslaughter may be committed in several
ways. It may arise if the accused is charged with murder
and had the mens rea required for murder (see malice
aforethought), but mitigating circumstances (diminished
responsibility, a suicide pact, or provocation) reduce the
offence to manslaughter; this is known as voluntary
manslaughter." See how 'diminished responsibility' IS
'mitigating circumstances'? Cheee.... another stake in
the heart.... will you NEVER die?
> The time to claim you were trolling is now.
>
Pitiful.... spank....span...sp..... Well, you know what I
mean. I'm really getting tired of doing it so often to you.
The time for you to head for your foxhole is now.
BTW -- Want to argue 'society self-defense'? You know
Castro said it, also. And he's a hell of a lot smarter
than you'll ever be.
PV
> w00f
>
A Planet Visitor
well. Sound familiar? Isn't that rather 'cheering on' the
MURDERERS?
PV
> J.
>
>
>
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
>"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>news:aa7ul8$jk3$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
>>
>> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>> >>
>> >> Fact is, that alot of nice US-guys and gals are cheerishing the
violence
>> >> lying in the DP. Fact, perceivable all along.
>> >>
>> >
>> >There is no 'fact' contained in your simplistic rant. It's
>> >simply another hugely irrelevant raving, based on nothing
>> >but your opinion. I could well call you a M-L, for your
>> >obvious leanings toward having 'pity' for someone who
>> >has MURDERED.
>> >
>>
>> There have been examples over examples of people cheerishing the
DP-violence
>> over and over right here, on AAD-P.
>>
>There have been examples of people 'pitying' murderers, as
>well. Sound familiar? Isn't that rather 'cheering on' the
>MURDERERS?
>
And? Even putting aside the fact of your inability to distinguish love from
pity, the FACT of multiple execution-brutality-cheerishers still stands.
Hence: There *IS* fact contained in my post, against your claim.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
<snip>
>> Well, Sir, perhaps we can argue about issues bearing any share of
>> subjectivity. Here we are discussing logics. Take note, because I'm not
goin
>> g to repeat a stringent conclusion.
>>
>Well, Sir... perhaps we can argue about you claiming that
>we must 'pity' those who murder? That's obviously a
>subjective opinion. So perhaps you can tell me why you
>feel we have a responsibility to apologize to someone who
>has murdered? Try to keep it unemotional and logical, and
>tell me where in the Justice System we might find that
>word in respect to the actions necessary to hold toward a
>murderer, which incorporate the word 'pity'?
Meanwhile it became clear that you can not distinguish between pity, an
apology and love. I have said what had to be said to this.
There are a handful of guys whom to have executed you are so eager that you
are prepared to throw over board any other value or thought. It is most
unfortunately not only the theoretical concept Death Penalty, but rather the
practically administered US-DP including 85% "unnecessary" executions that
dictates ANY of your terms and ideas. This goes so far that you not even can
manage it to conduct a civilized conversation.
>
>> You are *claiming* no positive correlation of the DP to the high murder
>> rate, merely using the *improvability* of an negative impact of the DP on
>> the level of violence. Then just this improvability makes impossible to
>> derive anything from the low Japanese murder rate to the DP.
>>
>I am stating clearly that there is no positive correlation of
>the DP to a higher murder rate. The proof of this lies in the
>fact that such a correlation would necessarily need to be
>demonstrated across the entire spectrum of those using
>the DP, to even 'BEGIN' to offer any argument that this
>positive correlation exists.
How am I to read the phrase above straightly, Sir? I started reading "The
proof of this lies in the fact..." and continued "...that such a correlation
would necessarily need to be demonstrated....". So I expected a proving fact
after your announcement, and got a pure demand to me to prove the contrary
in follow, otherwise your opinion were to mutate to a fact, automatically!
I dunno what kind of proof valids in the US or in Florida. In my country
lacking proof for the counter-thesis is not enough to prove the original
one.
A DP like administered in Japan, totally hidden before general public, may
have no brutalizing effect, while a DP like administered in the US well may
have.
Since it is an attempt to correlate
>the DP ITSELF, to a high murder rate, and not differing
>cultures of some society. And even finding such a correlation
>would STILL not prove the point, since EVERY society having
>a high murder rate, may have found it necessary to place
>the DP into the penalties provided for murder BECAUSE of
>those previously existing high murder rates. As I've said
>before. The ONLY argument that could hold ANY logical
>water, would be a LONG-TERM examination of the SAME
>society, that has abolished the DP. It would be necessary
>to show a distinct long-term high murder rate while the DP
>was used, and a distinct long-term low murder rate after it
>was abolished. And I believe, if I put my mind to it, I could
>demonstrate just the opposite. That abolishing the DP
>causes a slight elevation in the murder rate, even in those
>societies having a low murder rate to begin with, which
>formed the principle that the DP was unnecessary to
>begin with.
In other words, you are swiftly accusing others of speculation, while you
yourself can exactly put nothing else than pure belief.
>
>You may 'believe' anything you wish, using your opinion.
>But do not try to put such an opinion to any 'scientific
>test,' because it does not fly. Personally, I am convinced
>that the lack of the DP has created a slight increase in
>the murder rate in many European countries. But I
>certainly do not claim it passes any 'scientific test,'
>simply because Japan has the DP and a low murder rate.
If 760 people are held imprisoned instead executed, and actually 1% would
manage an escape, let's say 8 persons, and actually 2 of the escapees would
murder again, then I would want to see you proving any increase of the
murder rate.
Any rookie in statistics sees that the impact of whole the US DP on the
murder rate must necessarily be plain zero, for that the integral risk of
escape and recidivism and murder in prison lies for magnitudes below
significance viewing 3,700 DR-inmates (...of that a mere third would proceed
to actual execution!) and a tiny risk of escape in comparizon to a total of
murders ranging much higher than 10,000 per year.
A surfacial glimpse at the numbers' magnitude already reveals: The DP is not
any more than psycho-cosmetics by upholding an illusion of safety in
citizen's mind. The practical contribution to an objectively safer society
is zero.
J.
Jürgen
Do you know what "not necessarily" means?
A Planet Visitor
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Well, Sir, perhaps we can argue about issues bearing any share of
> >> subjectivity. Here we are discussing logics. Take note, because I'm not
> goin
> >> g to repeat a stringent conclusion.
> >>
> >Well, Sir... perhaps we can argue about you claiming that
> >we must 'pity' those who murder? That's obviously a
> >subjective opinion. So perhaps you can tell me why you
> >feel we have a responsibility to apologize to someone who
> >has murdered? Try to keep it unemotional and logical, and
> >tell me where in the Justice System we might find that
> >word in respect to the actions necessary to hold toward a
> >murderer, which incorporate the word 'pity'?
>
> Meanwhile it became clear that you can not distinguish between pity, an
> apology and love. I have said what had to be said to this.
>
said.' One can NEVER stop saying enough about a
lunatic view that we must 'pity' those who murder. It goes
against every principle that we hold in respect to human
life. If we had NO DP, would you STILL 'pity' the murderer?
If so, then you must realize the absurdity of your claim.
If not, then you must realize that your 'pity' is misdirected.
Pity society for USING that penalty, if you will... But NEVER
pity the MURDERER.
> There are a handful of guys whom to have executed you are so
> eager that you
> are prepared to throw over board any other value or thought. It is most
> unfortunately not only the theoretical concept Death Penalty, but rather the
> practically administered US-DP including 85% "unnecessary" executions that
> dictates ANY of your terms and ideas. This goes so far that you not even can
> manage it to conduct a civilized conversation.
>
Your idea of a 'civilized conversation' is to descend into
hysteria, in 'pity' for a murderer. Perhaps when you admit
that 'pity' for a murderer goes against everything we hold
precious in respect to life, we might begin a 'civilized
conversation.' As it is, there is NOTHING civilized about
expressing 'pity' or 'apologizing' to a murderer.
> >
> >> You are *claiming* no positive correlation of the DP to the high murder
> >> rate, merely using the *improvability* of an negative impact of the DP on
> >> the level of violence. Then just this improvability makes impossible to
> >> derive anything from the low Japanese murder rate to the DP.
> >>
> >I am stating clearly that there is no positive correlation of
> >the DP to a higher murder rate. The proof of this lies in the
> >fact that such a correlation would necessarily need to be
> >demonstrated across the entire spectrum of those using
> >the DP, to even 'BEGIN' to offer any argument that this
> >positive correlation exists.
>
> How am I to read the phrase above straightly, Sir? I started reading "The
> proof of this lies in the fact..." and continued "...that such a correlation
> would necessarily need to be demonstrated....". So I expected a proving fact
> after your announcement, and got a pure demand to me to prove the contrary
> in follow, otherwise your opinion were to mutate to a fact, automatically!
> I dunno what kind of proof valids in the US or in Florida. In my country
> lacking proof for the counter-thesis is not enough to prove the original
> one.
>
Umm.. once again... it is not my responsibility to prove the
negative. It is ASSUMED. You must prove the POSITIVE.
You must show a CONNECTION which exists in ALL
circumstances to support a belief that the DP CAUSES
an elevated murder rate. I do not have to prove it does not.
Yet I HAVE (Actually Japan has) provided evidence of a
society having the LOWEST murder rate, yet still having
the DP. You choose to ignore that fact, or scramble
hysterically to disprove it. But its EXISTENCE disproves
the CERTAINTY that the DP 'causes' an elevated murder
rate. Japan only provides the 'icing on the cake' to MY
argument, since the assumption is always in the negative,
regardless.
> A DP like administered in Japan, totally hidden before general public, may
> have no brutalizing effect, while a DP like administered in the US well may
> have.
>
--- YAWN --- You STILL don't get it. You are making an
assumption in the negative, and trying to form an axiom
in the positive. Japan has the LOWEST murder rate. You
are trying to assume that means NOTHING. Yet trying
ALSO to prove that the DP means SOMETHING somewhere
else. That's not proof... that's just 'snake-oil science.'
> >Since it is an attempt to correlate
> >the DP ITSELF, to a high murder rate, and not differing
> >cultures of some society. And even finding such a correlation
> >would STILL not prove the point, since EVERY society having
> >a high murder rate, may have found it necessary to place
> >the DP into the penalties provided for murder BECAUSE of
> >those previously existing high murder rates. As I've said
> >before. The ONLY argument that could hold ANY logical
> >water, would be a LONG-TERM examination of the SAME
> >society, that has abolished the DP. It would be necessary
> >to show a distinct long-term high murder rate while the DP
> >was used, and a distinct long-term low murder rate after it
> >was abolished. And I believe, if I put my mind to it, I could
> >demonstrate just the opposite. That abolishing the DP
> >causes a slight elevation in the murder rate, even in those
> >societies having a low murder rate to begin with, which
> >formed the principle that the DP was unnecessary to
> >begin with.
>
> In other words, you are swiftly accusing others of speculation,
> while you
> yourself can exactly put nothing else than pure belief.
>
???????? I am demonstrating how unscientific such
speculation is. You may 'speculate' that Santa Claus
comes to ONLY the U.S. and actually commits all
those murders, raising our murder rate. But that
'speculation' has as MUCH VALIDITY as the silly
'speculation' that the DP CAUSES an elevated murder
rate. You are simply continuing that 'tired, old argument'
that many abolitionists use, that BECAUSE they believe
it 'should,' then it 'IS.' And in ALL logical principles,
'should' DOES NOT EQUAL 'IS.' Any belief in
an 'is' regarding a positive correlation of the DP and
the murder rate, is ripped to shreds by the evidence
of Japan. Regardless of silly gyrations to try and find
some REASON why this fact exists, even though the
existence of the fact, disproves the argument (opinion).
> >
> >You may 'believe' anything you wish, using your opinion.
> >But do not try to put such an opinion to any 'scientific
> >test,' because it does not fly. Personally, I am convinced
> >that the lack of the DP has created a slight increase in
> >the murder rate in many European countries. But I
> >certainly do not claim it passes any 'scientific test,'
> >simply because Japan has the DP and a low murder rate.
>
> If 760 people are held imprisoned instead executed, and actually 1% would
> manage an escape, let's say 8 persons, and actually 2 of the escapees would
> murder again, then I would want to see you proving any increase of the
> murder rate.
>
How silly... What has ANY OF THAT to do with an assumption
that the DP RAISES the murder rate? Which is of course,
YOUR argument. You are apparently now saying that because
you CAN'T prove your argument, because of the data, we need
to ASSUME it's true???
> Any rookie in statistics sees that the impact of whole the US DP on the
> murder rate must necessarily be plain zero, for that the integral risk of
> escape and recidivism and murder in prison lies for magnitudes below
> significance viewing 3,700 DR-inmates (...of that a mere third would proceed
> to actual execution!) and a tiny risk of escape in comparizon to a total of
> murders ranging much higher than 10,000 per year.
>
> A surfacial glimpse at the numbers' magnitude already reveals: The DP is not
> any more than psycho-cosmetics by upholding an illusion of safety in
> citizen's mind. The practical contribution to an objectively safer society
> is zero.
>
?????????? Just another rant that doesn't even deserve
my time. Sometimes I think your argument favors the
execution of ALL murderers, with a much shorter due
process involved, just taking our chances that we might
execute an innocent. When your argument is looked at
in a logical, rather than your typical emotional rant, I
believe that is the principle it ACTUALLY rests on. Let's
not give us 'time' to 'pity' the murderer, seems to be the
centerpiece of your argument. I should just post my 'list'
again. But you already KNOW the score. Yet you just
blindly refuse to see it.
PV
> J.
>
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
you just 'pity' them. Now you may put any spin you wish
on that silly argument. But the fact is you have IGNORED
what brought them to the place in life where they stand.
It is only where they stand at present that concerns you.
EVERYTHING else - victim - society- is ignored. You
have 'apologized' to THE MURDERER, for the victim and
society having placed themselves in a path which seemed
to conflict with the self-interest of the murderer. It is no
longer the murderer's fault. It becomes the fault of the
victim and society. IMHO, you support the murderer,
and in the process disgrace both the victim and society.
People expressing satisfaction when finding that a Ted
Bundy, or John Wayne Gacy has been executed, have
placed their valuation of human life in a PROPER perspective.
Unfortunately, I do not see feeling 'pity' for a murderer does
anything such as that.
You will not find me jumping for joy, having taken anyone's
life, regardless of how well-deserved. But you will not
find me expressing pity for the murderer. It would seem to
me that THIS would be a devaluation of human life. The pity
should be reserved for the victim and our society. Of course,
IMHO.
PV
A Planet Visitor
of MC having reduced the charge. You then replied
with 'hence...' which assumes that my argument
concluded it did not reduce the charge in that case.
Which is WRONG. Of course, MC as an argument in
its totality does not 'necessarily' reduce the charge.
But in this PARTICULAR case it DID reduce the charge.
PV