Challenge to anti-dp'ers
One
I'd like to pose a challenge to readers of this newsgroup, particularly
anti-dp'ers:
Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
Incarceration you say? Not so. There are several cases of the wrongly
convicted being killed while serving prison sentences. Scores of innocent
people have been killed while wrongly incarcerated.
The issue of the innocent executed is a red herring. There is no criminal
justice punishment (which restrains criminals to some degree) that does
not risk innocent lives.
Some anti-'s suggest that being wrongfully executed is just not 'like'
being killed in jail by another prisoner - that the state is not doing
it. But the state is doing it - putting the convicted in the midst of
large numbers of violent offenders, against the convicted's will. It's
like throwing someone into an arena of lions and saying, "I didn't kill
him, the lions did."
Putting a truly nonviolent individual in the midst of violent offenders
would be like putting him into a shark tank.
Anyway, the wrongfully convicted in both cases are just as dead. And
both died as direct results of being subjected to a criminal justice
punishment.
Can you think of a criminal justice punishment which restrains criminals
to some degree, that does not risk the wrongfully convicted's life?
- ABJ
A Planet Visitor
"One" <cold...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:a4fd3f$e6g$1...@panix1.panix.com...
>
>
> I'd like to pose a challenge to readers of this newsgroup, particularly
> anti-dp'ers:
>
> Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
> degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
>
> Incarceration you say? Not so. There are several cases of the wrongly
> convicted being killed while serving prison sentences. Scores of innocent
> people have been killed while wrongly incarcerated.
>
question is, short of absolute solitary confinement, 24
hours a day, every day, the risk to innocent lives lost to
murder in prison by proven murderers cannot be avoided.
> The issue of the innocent executed is a red herring. There is no criminal
> justice punishment (which restrains criminals to some degree) that does
> not risk innocent lives.
>
This is rather proven in the National Study of the Furman-Commuted
Inmates, conducted by Marquart/Sorensen. In that study of 558
Furman-Commuted inmates, 315 were not released and their
conduct in prison examined. They were ALL convicted capital
murderers, who had had their sentences reduced to alternate
penalties because of Furman. Those 315 committed 6 new
murders while still incarcerated. Four on fellow inmates,
serving other penalties, and 2 on prison guards. The fact that
those 315 were sentenced to alternate penalties rather proves
that innocent lives are at risk from murderers in prison. Nor
is the DP assured of preventing murder, until it is executed.
Jarmarr Arnold murdered ANOTHER murderer while BOTH were
on Death Row, awaiting execution. Talk about your macabre
circumstances.
Indeed, the argument of a possible executed innocent because
the State executes rather than incarcerates proven murderers
IS a red-herring. There is absolutely no way that an anti-DPer
could claim that there have been 6 innocents executed by the
State post-Furman.
> Some anti-'s suggest that being wrongfully executed is just not 'like'
> being killed in jail by another prisoner - that the state is not doing
> it. But the state is doing it - putting the convicted in the midst of
> large numbers of violent offenders, against the convicted's will. It's
> like throwing someone into an arena of lions and saying, "I didn't kill
> him, the lions did."
>
Quite true.. the State both incarcerates and executes (if provided
for in the law). The fact that both of those create the element
which permits the loss of innocent life, is usually lost on those who
oppose the DP. I have even heard some opposed to the DP,
claim it is too 'good' for them, and they DESERVE a lifetime
of punishment instead. Without realizing that by perpetuating
that life, other lives are placed in jeopardy even while in prison.
> Putting a truly nonviolent individual in the midst of violent offenders
> would be like putting him into a shark tank.
>
> Anyway, the wrongfully convicted in both cases are just as dead. And
> both died as direct results of being subjected to a criminal justice
> punishment.
>
> Can you think of a criminal justice punishment which restrains criminals
> to some degree, that does not risk the wrongfully convicted's life?
>
Total 24 hour solitary confinement with ABSOLUTELY no physical
contact with other prisoners or guards. But do we even WANT
to do that to the wrongfully convicted, simply because we find it
necessary to do so to the rightfully convicted?
Of course, IMHO.
PV
>
> - ABJ
>
>
>
Spot
>Date: 2/13/2002 10:06 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <a4fd3f$e6g$1...@panix1.panix.com>
>
>
>
>I'd like to pose a challenge to readers of this newsgroup, particularly
>anti-dp'ers:
>
> Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
> degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
>
>Incarceration you say? Not so. There are several cases of the wrongly
>convicted being killed while serving prison sentences. Scores of innocent
>people have been killed while wrongly incarcerated.
Care to provide some proof of that last claim?
Spot
>Date: 2/13/2002 11:30 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <aYHa8.127772$Gb1.16...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>
So your point is what - that convicted murderers are too dangerous to be
trusted with parole, they are too dangerous to be put in the general prison
population, and they are too dangerous to be sent to death row?
JĆ¼rgen
One schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
>
>Some anti-'s suggest that being wrongfully executed is just not 'like'
>being killed in jail by another prisoner - that the state is not doing
>it. But the state is doing it - putting the convicted in the midst of
>large numbers of violent offenders, against the convicted's will. It's
>like throwing someone into an arena of lions and saying, "I didn't kill
>him, the lions did."
>
>Putting a truly nonviolent individual in the midst of violent offenders
>would be like putting him into a shark tank.
>
Well, prisons in my country are not a fine place at all. But that your
prisons have evolved into hell holes is the result of a totally insensitive
and nonsensial way to deal with guilty people.
JĆ¼rgen
A Planet Visitor
"Spot" <dalmatio...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020214093405...@mb-cg.aol.com...
"There is no criminal justice punishment (which restrains criminals
SOME convicted murderers are too dangerous to be trusted with
parole. Of course, SOME convicted murderers are too dangerous
to be put in the general prison population. And, of course, short
of actually having ALREADY been executed, some murderers
are still dangerous even on death row. Since there are SOME
convicted murderers who fit all of those three risk factors, that
fact alone justifies the USE of the DP in certain cases. The
'point' was in respect to those who oppose the DP, yet feel
L wop will provide the safety that the DP does not. The fact
is... the poster's point, which I fully agree with, is the issue
of the innocent executed is a red herring. It can be realized
that more innocents are murdered by NOT executing certain
murderers, then society could possible execute.
PV
A Planet Visitor
exact wording of his claim, since, as abolitionists love to point
out, once dead it is impossible to prove they were legally
innocent.
I think the general point is relevant, in respect to incarcerating
some murderers instead of executing them. Certainly NUMEROUS
examples of murderers sentenced to alternate penalties having
murdered innocents while in prison exist. The point being --
'no one is guilty of BEING murdered.' The victim, regardless
of the reason for which incarcerated is INNOCENT in respect
to 'being murdered.' Unless you believe ANYONE 'deserves'
to be murdered because of having committed a crime. And
certainly a convicted murderer who murders a prison guard has
murdered an innocent of ANY crime. And there are clear
examples of the proof of that.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"JĆ¼rgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:a4gv3l$4tr$06$1...@news.t-online.com...
You've been reading too many 'Crime Comics Monthly,' JĆ¼rgen.
What the hell do YOU know about U.S. prisons except what
you read in those 'rags'?
PV
BCarley978
American prisons is the result of a basically nonsensical and vain attitude
toward dealing with crime, an attitude based on pompous ego gratification
alone. So is the prevalence of the death penalty in this country (the U.S.). My
general sense is that we Americans like to keep our heads in the sand in regard
to certain types of issues - and then when the stuff finally hits the fan, we
wake up, but only for a moment or two. These issues may take a mass movement to
correct, just as the slavery issue did.
LMac
That's a broad statement. How many American prisons have you visited? I have
visited a few here in Texas (officially) and can tell you that 'Hell Hole'
is hardly an apt description. They get three hot meals, a library,
television, physical sports activities, work (if they want it), yada yada
yada. Insensitive? INSENSITIVE? Sorry, Jurgen, but that's a load of shit.
Prisons are not sensitivity centers, but we are sensitive to their basic
needs. Nonsensical? What is nonsensical about the way our prisoners are
handled? If you are addressing the DP specifically then I can understand
your attitude, otherwise I will say that the US prison system is probably
outside your realm of experience.
Mac
LMac
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrna6qb55.1de.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> Le Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:37:23 -0600, LMac <lmck...@ev1.net> a Ć©crit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Well, prisons in my country are not a fine place at all. But that your
> >> prisons have evolved into hell holes is the result of a totally
> > insensitive
> >> and nonsensial way to deal with guilty people.
>
have
> > visited a few here in Texas (officially) and can tell you that 'Hell
Hole'
> > is hardly an apt description. They get three hot meals, a library,
> > television, physical sports activities, work (if they want it), yada
yada
> > yada. Insensitive? INSENSITIVE? Sorry, Jurgen, but that's a load of
shit.
> > Prisons are not sensitivity centers, but we are sensitive to their basic
> > needs. Nonsensical? What is nonsensical about the way our prisoners are
> > handled? If you are addressing the DP specifically then I can understand
> > your attitude, otherwise I will say that the US prison system is
probably
> > outside your realm of experience.
>
> prison, then I think that the above, would not enter into consideration.
> Simply being deprived of my liberty, would be punishment enough, I think.
That being one of the main points of a penal code in the first place, of
course. I suppose it could be a matter of perspective to say any place you
were forced to stay against your will could be considered a 'hell hole'
(wait..., that sounds like my office).
Mac
JĆ¼rgen
LMac schrieb in Nachricht <3c6d1ba6$1...@newsa.ev1.net>...
Well, murders in US-prisons are often used by DP-proponents as an argument,
right? I now know of not one single murder in our prisons, and I'm not 20
years old. Any explanations?
JĆ¼rgen
P.s.: And please don't come up with our folks housed in penitentaries for
anyway nicer guys than yours.
LMac
To answer that properly I would need the ratio of convicted violent felons
in your prisons versus those in ours - also the raw number of violent felons
in each system - to extrapolate a posible explaination. I assume you are in
Germany, correct?
> P.s.: And please don't come up with our folks housed in penitentaries for
> anyway nicer guys than yours.
It would never occur to me, considering the history of your country.
Euroguy
"One" <cold...@panix.com> åå „ę¶ęÆę°é»:a4fd3f$e6g$1...@panix1.panix.com...
>
>
> I'd like to pose a challenge to readers of this newsgroup, particularly
> anti-dp'ers:
>
> Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
> degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
>
> Incarceration you say? Not so. There are several cases of the wrongly
> convicted being killed while serving prison sentences. Scores of innocent
> people have been killed while wrongly incarcerated.
That is true. No justice system can guarantee that no mistakes are made. But
incarceration has this superiority over death penalty, that it enables the
possibility for the wrongly convicted to keep fighting to prove their
innocence, and finally to indemnify them in case they are recognised as
innocent.
Death penalty, once implemented, doesn't offer this possibility. That is
what makes it unacceptable.
> The issue of the innocent executed is a red herring. There is no criminal
> justice punishment (which restrains criminals to some degree) that does
> not risk innocent lives.
>
> Some anti-'s suggest that being wrongfully executed is just not 'like'
> being killed in jail by another prisoner - that the state is not doing
> it. But the state is doing it - putting the convicted in the midst of
> large numbers of violent offenders, against the convicted's will. It's
> like throwing someone into an arena of lions and saying, "I didn't kill
> him, the lions did."
>
> Putting a truly nonviolent individual in the midst of violent offenders
> would be like putting him into a shark tank.
This is why the State should make sure prisons are safe and do not mix
non-violent convicted with violent convicted. If US states took care of this
primary duty, they would greatly reduce the number of accidents in prisons.
Besides, convicted are more incited to kill in jails when they are given no
other perspective than a capital execution or an absolute impossibility of
parole. This is why the door to parole should always be left open, in all
cases, but conditionned to significant improvements in the convicted's
behaviour.
> Anyway, the wrongfully convicted in both cases are just as dead. And
> both died as direct results of being subjected to a criminal justice
> punishment.
>
> Can you think of a criminal justice punishment which restrains criminals
> to some degree, that does not risk the wrongfully convicted's life?
>
>
> - ABJ
Conclusion: look at the way European countries deal with their criminals
without resorting to death penalty. You will see...
Euro
JĆ¼rgen
LMac schrieb in Nachricht <3c6d6...@newsa.ev1.net>...
>
.......If you are addressing the DP specifically then I can understand
>> >your attitude, otherwise I will say that the US prison system is
probably
>> >outside your realm of experience.
>> >
>> >Mac
>>
>> Well, murders in US-prisons are often used by DP-proponents as an
>argument,
>> right? I now know of not one single murder in our prisons, and I'm not 20
>> years old. Any explanations?
>>
>
>in your prisons versus those in ours - also the raw number of violent
felons
>in each system - to extrapolate a posible explaination.
.........is a German saying obtaining in the United States almost the status
of a dogma. It's ca. 'Any single one forges his own happiness', an ideology
that has permitted and caused great forthcomings in the U.S. of A. in many
respects.
The limits of this philosophy get obvious however if the negative is viewed:
'Anyone is the only cause of his own misery', to the extent that any
influences of his environment on his evolve do not exist. Exactly this
absolutistic claim is needed if one would like to stand for all the 750++ US
executions post Furman as justified in the sense of "He deserved it".
But then this one loses the argumentative ground to conclude to another
percentage of violent felons in a different society. Total
self-responsibility must mean zero influence of societal circumstances on
the course that any life took. 'Different societies produce different levels
of violence' and 'Anyone is to 100% responsible for his mental state' are
contradictory.
I assume you are in
>Germany, correct?
Absolut korrekt.
>> P.s.: And please don't come up with our folks housed in penitentaries for
>> anyway nicer guys than yours.
>
>It would never occur to me, considering the history of your country.
>
The recent history of my country and populace permits an excellent viewing
where human values represented by an adult come from. The adult's status of
the once merely human-inherent *dispositions for moral* depends upon
learning and interpretation TOTALLY. Means there is a mental room for a
conscience in any new-born, but when exactly this conscience once will alert
will depend upon taught values in an absolute way.
JĆ¼rgen
A Planet Visitor
"Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c6e1...@news1.meganetnews.com...
>
> "One" <cold...@panix.com> ĆĀ“ĆĆ«ĆĆ»ĆĀ¢ĆĆĆĆ :a4fd3f$e6g$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> >
> >
> > I'd like to pose a challenge to readers of this newsgroup, particularly
> > anti-dp'ers:
> >
> > Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
> > degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
> >
> > Incarceration you say? Not so. There are several cases of the wrongly
> > convicted being killed while serving prison sentences. Scores of innocent
> > people have been killed while wrongly incarcerated.
>
> That is true. No justice system can guarantee that no mistakes are made. But
> incarceration has this superiority over death penalty, that it enables the
> possibility for the wrongly convicted to keep fighting to prove their
> innocence, and finally to indemnify them in case they are recognised as
> innocent.
>
have this superiority over the death penalty, when considering
the loss of innocent life. In 1999, there were 11 murders
committed in prisons across the nation. Can you possibly
believe that we've executed more than at the MOST 1 innocent
in the past 25 years? The innocent, murdered in prison
by a murderer sentenced to an alternate penalty can certainly
never keep fighting to prove their innocence.
> Death penalty, once implemented, doesn't offer this possibility. That is
> what makes it unacceptable.
>
Nor does being murdered in prison offer this possibility.
>
> > The issue of the innocent executed is a red herring. There is no criminal
> > justice punishment (which restrains criminals to some degree) that does
> > not risk innocent lives.
> >
> > Some anti-'s suggest that being wrongfully executed is just not 'like'
> > being killed in jail by another prisoner - that the state is not doing
> > it. But the state is doing it - putting the convicted in the midst of
> > large numbers of violent offenders, against the convicted's will. It's
> > like throwing someone into an arena of lions and saying, "I didn't kill
> > him, the lions did."
> >
> > Putting a truly nonviolent individual in the midst of violent offenders
> > would be like putting him into a shark tank.
>
> This is why the State should make sure prisons are safe and do not mix
> non-violent convicted with violent convicted. If US states took care of this
> primary duty, they would greatly reduce the number of accidents in prisons.
>
Ah, yes. Keep them ALL confined in solitary for 24/7. That
will show ALL of them how humane we are.
> Besides, convicted are more incited to kill in jails when they are given no
> other perspective than a capital execution or an absolute impossibility of
> parole. This is why the door to parole should always be left open, in all
> cases, but conditionned to significant improvements in the convicted's
> behaviour.
>
No... that would ONLY apply if given L wop. A convicted
murderer once executed cannot murder ANYONE in prison
or out. That's called a truism, my boy. And I do agree that
your comment is meaningful in respect to L wop. Someone
sentenced to THAT penalty, in a State that has NO DP,
obviously has NOTHING to lose by murdering an innocent
victim in prison. Thus it is EITHER the DP or an alternate
penalty other than L wop.
>
> > Anyway, the wrongfully convicted in both cases are just as dead. And
> > both died as direct results of being subjected to a criminal justice
> > punishment.
> >
> > Can you think of a criminal justice punishment which restrains criminals
> > to some degree, that does not risk the wrongfully convicted's life?
> >
> >
> > - ABJ
>
> Conclusion: look at the way European countries deal with their criminals
> without resorting to death penalty. You will see...
>
See what????
PV
> Euro
>
>
>
Bob Nevin
> "Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c6e1...@news1.meganetnews.com...
> >
> > "One" <cold...@panix.com> ĆĀ“ĆĆ«ĆĆ»ĆĀ¢ĆĆĆĆ :a4fd3f$e6g$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd like to pose a challenge to readers of this newsgroup, particularly
> > > anti-dp'ers:
> > >
> > > Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
> > > degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
> > >
> > > Incarceration you say? Not so. There are several cases of the wrongly
> > > convicted being killed while serving prison sentences. Scores of innocent
> > > people have been killed while wrongly incarcerated.
was Jim McDougal wrongly incarcerated?
http://www.geocities.com/mobaster/victims.htm
Euroguy
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
??????:wByb8.152324$Gb1.20...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...> > "One" <cold...@panix.com> åå „ę¶ęÆę°é»:a4fd3f$e6g$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd like to pose a challenge to readers of this newsgroup,
particularly
> > > anti-dp'ers:
> > >
> > > Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
> > > degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
> > >
> > > Incarceration you say? Not so. There are several cases of the wrongly
> > > convicted being killed while serving prison sentences. Scores of
innocent
> > > people have been killed while wrongly incarcerated.
> >
> > That is true. No justice system can guarantee that no mistakes are made.
But
> > incarceration has this superiority over death penalty, that it enables
the
> > possibility for the wrongly convicted to keep fighting to prove their
> > innocence, and finally to indemnify them in case they are recognised as
> > innocent.
> >
> I think the point being made is that incarceration DOES NOT
> have this superiority over the death penalty, when considering
> the loss of innocent life. In 1999, there were 11 murders
> committed in prisons across the nation. Can you possibly
> believe that we've executed more than at the MOST 1 innocent
> in the past 25 years? The innocent, murdered in prison
> by a murderer sentenced to an alternate penalty can certainly
> never keep fighting to prove their innocence.
So you say that, since there are murders in American jails, it is better to
execute people! Wouldn't it be better to ensure safe jails? A great country
like the US should be able to provide safety to its prisoners.
Whereas executions a great sign of how humane you are.
>
> > Besides, convicted are more incited to kill in jails when they are given
no
> > other perspective than a capital execution or an absolute impossibility
of
> > parole. This is why the door to parole should always be left open, in
all
> > cases, but conditionned to significant improvements in the convicted's
> > behaviour.
> >
> No... that would ONLY apply if given L wop. A convicted
> murderer once executed cannot murder ANYONE in prison
> or out.
The problem is, he can murder many people before the execution.
> That's called a truism, my boy. And I do agree that
> your comment is meaningful in respect to L wop. Someone
> sentenced to THAT penalty, in a State that has NO DP,
> obviously has NOTHING to lose by murdering an innocent
> victim in prison. Thus it is EITHER the DP or an alternate
> penalty other than L wop.
>
Someone who waits for his execution in jail for years and sometimes decades
has nothing to lose either. That, also, is true.
> >
> > > Anyway, the wrongfully convicted in both cases are just as dead. And
> > > both died as direct results of being subjected to a criminal justice
> > > punishment.
> > >
> > > Can you think of a criminal justice punishment which restrains
criminals
> > > to some degree, that does not risk the wrongfully convicted's life?
> > >
> > >
> > > - ABJ
> >
> > Conclusion: look at the way European countries deal with their criminals
> > without resorting to death penalty. You will see...
> >
> See what????
That capital crime rates in Europe are much lower then in the US, including
in European jails. How can you explain that?
Euro
A Planet Visitor
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
> ??????:wByb8.152324$Gb1.20...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c6e1...@news1.meganetnews.com...
> > >
that murderers must not only be kept from the rest of the
prison population, but kept from each other, in solitary confinement
24/7, as well?
Of course. In comparison to solitary confinement for 24/7,
ANYONE with a hint of compassion would realize that the
DP is more humane. The ONLY argument making sense
against the DP in pragmatic terms is the possibility of
executing an innocent. There is NO DENYING that
possibility. Nor is there any possibility of denying that
murderers murder again, both in and out of prison. And
L wop does not PREVENT that from happening, unless we
also accept the fact that we must confine those sentenced
to that penalty to 24/7 solitary confinement, since they
have NOTHING to lose by committing further murders.
What can we DO to them? Sentenced them to ANOTHER
L wop? Get real.
>
> >
> > > Besides, convicted are more incited to kill in jails when they are given
> no
> > > other perspective than a capital execution or an absolute impossibility
> of
> > > parole. This is why the door to parole should always be left open, in
> all
> > > cases, but conditionned to significant improvements in the convicted's
> > > behaviour.
> > >
> > No... that would ONLY apply if given L wop. A convicted
> > murderer once executed cannot murder ANYONE in prison
> > or out.
>
> The problem is, he can murder many people before the execution.
>
Please... How many can he murder AFTER execution?
Now compare that with how many he can murder until
he dies a NATURAL death. And we certainly should not
expect to confine those sentenced to alternate penalties
(other than the DP), to an environment comparable to DR.
You've only made the point that murderers CAN murder
while still living. That hardly makes a case against the
DP.
> > That's called a truism, my boy. And I do agree that
> > your comment is meaningful in respect to L wop. Someone
> > sentenced to THAT penalty, in a State that has NO DP,
> > obviously has NOTHING to lose by murdering an innocent
> > victim in prison. Thus it is EITHER the DP or an alternate
> > penalty other than L wop.
> >
>
> Someone who waits for his execution in jail for years and sometimes decades
> has nothing to lose either. That, also, is true.
>
But that someone is not kept with the general prison population.
Are you proposing we confine ALL murderers to the same
solitary confinement we provide to DR inmates? We keep
those on DR in such confinement because we REALIZE they have
NOTHING to lose by committing another murder. Why we
don't see that with L wop as well, continues to amaze me.
When one is offered NO HOPE, one really doesn't give a
damn WHAT they do. Losing smoking privileges for a
month doesn't strike me as suitable punishment for
committing a murder on a fellow prisoner. In fact, murder
SERVES a purpose of someone sentenced to L wop. It
means they get out of the prison environment for some
days which they spend in a cozy courtroom environment,
protected by their Constitutional 'right' to confront their
accusers, while we go through the motions of simply
sentencing them to L wop ALL OVER AGAIN.
> > >
> > > > Anyway, the wrongfully convicted in both cases are just as dead. And
> > > > both died as direct results of being subjected to a criminal justice
> > > > punishment.
> > > >
> > > > Can you think of a criminal justice punishment which restrains
> criminals
> > > > to some degree, that does not risk the wrongfully convicted's life?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - ABJ
> > >
> > > Conclusion: look at the way European countries deal with their criminals
> > > without resorting to death penalty. You will see...
> > >
> > See what????
>
> That capital crime rates in Europe are much lower then in the US, including
> in European jails. How can you explain that?
>
The capital crime rates in MANY U.S. States closely follows
the European rate. It is not a matter of U.S. v. Europe. It
is a matter of many parts of the U.S. being a violent society.
In U.S. DOJ statistics for 1999, these States reported
Murder/non-negligent manslaughter rates per 100,000
population quite comparable to many sectors of Europe --
Iowa -- 1.5
New Hampshire -- 1.5
North Dakota -- 1.6
Massachusetts -- 2.0
Idaho -- 2.0
Utah -- 2.1
Maine -- 2.2
Wyoming -- 2.3
Do you see how it is possible to present opinion bolstered
by even a little bit of fact, in YOUR OWN words, without relying
on copying the work of the student next to you?
PV
> Euro
>
>
>
>
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Yes. That "prison and work" e-mail/news posting that does the rounds
isn't actually that far from the truth.
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))
Peter Morris
> anti-dp'ers:
>
> Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
> degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
Yes, of course I can. Incarceration.
> Incarceration you say? Not so. There are several cases of the wrongly
> convicted being killed while serving prison sentences. Scores of innocent
> people have been killed while wrongly incarcerated.
Please try to understand. Innocent people get murdered OUTSIDE
prison too. In fact innocent people are SAFER inside prison than outside.
> The issue of the innocent executed is a red herring.
wrong.
> There is no criminal
> justice punishment (which restrains criminals to some degree) that does
> not risk innocent lives.
Yes there is. Its incarceration
> Some anti-'s suggest that being wrongfully executed is just not 'like'
> being killed in jail by another prisoner - that the state is not doing
> it. But the state is doing it
wrong. Its the murdere who did it, not 'the state'
>- putting the convicted in the midst of
> large numbers of violent offenders, against the convicted's will. It's
> like throwing someone into an arena of lions and saying, "I didn't kill
> him, the lions did."
>
> Putting a truly nonviolent individual in the midst of violent offenders
> would be like putting him into a shark tank.
>
> Anyway, the wrongfully convicted in both cases are just as dead. And
> both died as direct results of being subjected to a criminal justice
> punishment.
wrong. In one case the innocent person has been killed by
the state's ineptitude, in the other case he has been kileed by murder.
> Can you think of a criminal justice punishment which restrains criminals
> to some degree, that does not risk the wrongfully convicted's life?
Yes, its incarceration. Wake up and smell the coffee.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
news:a53195$rft$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
>
> "One" <cold...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:a4fd3f$e6g$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> >
> >
> > I'd like to pose a challenge to readers of this newsgroup, particularly
> > anti-dp'ers:
> >
> > Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
> > degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
>
> Yes, of course I can. Incarceration.
>
From the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for the years indicated,
there were reported institutional murders of
1993 = 15
1994 = 14
1995 = 31
1996 -= 13
1997 = 19
1998 =13
1999 = 11
So for the 7 years recorded, there were a total of 116 murders
in prison. This is an average of 16.57 murders per year. And
further extrapolating that across the ~25 years post-Furman,
we have ~412 murders COMMITTED in prison institutions.
Now, how many innocents did you claim we've executed?
And you well know the Furman inmate-commuted study
showed that 315, of those who remained incarcerated,
of the 558 cases examined, committed 6 PROVEN new
murders. And they were ALL committed by capital murderers
having been commuted from the DP.
> > Incarceration you say? Not so. There are several cases of the wrongly
> > convicted being killed while serving prison sentences. Scores of innocent
> > people have been killed while wrongly incarcerated.
>
> Please try to understand. Innocent people get murdered OUTSIDE
> prison too. In fact innocent people are SAFER inside prison than outside.
>
Please try to understand that your comment has NOTHING to
do with the statement. The statement stands as fact. The
PRESUMPTION of incarceration is incapacitation WHILE
incarcerated. We do not presume incapacitation of those
who are NOT in prison. One of the reasons we even DO
confine those who have demonstrated violent behavior, is
we EXPECT them to be incapacitated while in prison.
Access to all forms of weapons and opportunity exist in a
free society, as opposed to prison. It is quite reasonable
to FIND a greater degree of danger in such a free society,
then one that is highly confining and controlled. This is the
point that I find relevant to the Furman inmate commuted
study as well. That study showed 6 new murders by those
IN PRISON, and only 1 new murderer (it was ACTUALLY at
least a proven 2), of those released. The numbers would
appear to be 'cooked' in respect to those murderers released,
if we are to expect any consistency in statistics.
The statement says that prison incapacitation is FLAWED,
and claims NOTHING in respect to the body of citizens at
large. The statement is TRUE. That is undeniable. The
statement as posed had nothing to do with your simplistic
answer. Which almost looked like a 'cover-up' to the
truth of the argument. The point is that incarceration is
NOT as absolute as execution. No murderer executed has
EVER murdered again, IN or OUT of prison. The point of
the argument is that there WERE people, IN PRISON,
both innocent and murdered in prison. This totally negates the
proposition that incarceration provides ABSOLUTE
incapacitation. It has NOTHING to do with being safer in
or out of prison.
Were your argument to make any sense, perhaps you assume
we should incarcerate all innocents for their own safety,
and even let those presently incarcerated free, thereby
reducing even further the possibility of the innocent being
murdered. Bujt I think then, we'd have the violent trying
to break INTO prison, to STILL demonstrate their violent
behavior toward the innocent.
> > The issue of the innocent executed is a red herring.
>
> wrong.
>
Prove it!!! Where is the PROOF of an innocent executed? Can't
find it perhaps, because we simply haven't LOOKED hard enough?
CRAPOLA. How many bites at the apple would you presume
we should provide a proven murderer? How many bites at the
apple do we give the State to prove guilt, having been found
innocent?
> > There is no criminal
> > justice punishment (which restrains criminals to some degree) that does
> > not risk innocent lives.
>
> Yes there is. Its incarceration
>
CRAPOLA. 'Its incarceration' is WHAT?
> > Some anti-'s suggest that being wrongfully executed is just not 'like'
> > being killed in jail by another prisoner - that the state is not doing
> > it. But the state is doing it
>
> wrong. Its the murdere who did it, not 'the state'
>
Finally, something upon which we agree. Nonetheless, the State
has 'accepted' that possibility by permitting murderers to have
access to other prisoners. No matter how limited that access
is. Only total isolation 24/7, would prevent the State from
'accepting' that possibility. Just as the State has 'accepted'
both the possibility of executing an innocent; or freeing 10 guilty
to prevent finding an innocent guilty, as far as humanly possible,
using a concept of 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' when proving
guilt. We cannot expect perfection in ANY human activity.
> >- putting the convicted in the midst of
> > large numbers of violent offenders, against the convicted's will. It's
> > like throwing someone into an arena of lions and saying, "I didn't kill
> > him, the lions did."
> >
> > Putting a truly nonviolent individual in the midst of violent offenders
> > would be like putting him into a shark tank.
> >
> > Anyway, the wrongfully convicted in both cases are just as dead. And
> > both died as direct results of being subjected to a criminal justice
> > punishment.
>
> wrong. In one case the innocent person has been killed by
> the state's ineptitude, in the other case he has been kileed by murder.
>
And they wonder why I sometimes refer to some abolitionists
as possessing absolute NO MORALS, in arguing an indefensible
position. Murder is ALWAYS unlawful. Penalties for crimes
(any penalities, any crimes) are ALWAYS lawful. Whether they
are moral or not, is quite a different consideration. You have
made a fool of yourself before, with this statement which
essentially claims that all homicide is murder, which is totally
false. Why do you insist on further proving you're a fool?
You are perhaps assuming the State cannot execute because it
places an innocent life in jeopardy. But the fact is, providing a
driver's licence to a citizen is 'accepting' the POSSIBILITY of that
driver committing homicide on an innocent. In fact, it happens
about 110 times EVERY DAY, compared to at the MOST,
2 times in 25 years in the use of the DP. Since all other
cases of exectuion almost certainly involve those ACTUALLY
guilty of the ~750 proven murderers we've executed in ~25 years.
Try to put things in perspective. There is no possibility of
permitting citizens to drive being a MORAL issue. We may
well NOT permit it, as we may well not permit the DP.
It is NOT a 'right' but a 'privilege' GRANTED by the State.
So do not lose sight of the fact that we permit driving
for PLEASURE without concern for safety, other than
establishing rules we expect drivers to obey. And
in general, punishing them far less severly for breaking those
rules, then we punish those who commit other forms
of crime. All the while, KNOWING there is a given morality
rate with PERMITTING such pleasure. While we execute
with the expectation that we are providing SAFETY. Totally
and absolutely. Deriving NO PLEASURE from the fact that
we have indentified those murderers who ARE SO dangerous
that we presume execution is the ONLY solution.
> > Can you think of a criminal justice punishment which restrains criminals
> > to some degree, that does not risk the wrongfully convicted's life?
>
> Yes, its incarceration. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Wrong...wrong....wrong. And you STILL do not know where
the apostrophe key is on your keyboard.
PV
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>
>Wrong...wrong....wrong. And you STILL do not know where
>the apostrophe key is on your keyboard.
>
>PV
>
>
Barefaced cheek.
You criticising others for an inability to use apostrophes is akin to
my telling someone off for swearing, PV.
What's more, Peter's errors might in fact be the result of laziness
rather than ignorance. Compare his _inaction_ with your very obvious
_acion_ every time the greengrocer in you escapes.
Doesn't that link in somewhere with the "Trolley Problem"?
w00f
PS - Apple's anyone?
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<of Peter, whom I for some reason imagine to have a big beard>
> Why do you insist on further proving you're a fool?
Because it's a prerequisite for getting on a level with you?
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
news:99qa7ug7i31de0njl...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:39:14 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> >
> >Wrong...wrong....wrong. And you STILL do not know where
> >the apostrophe key is on your keyboard.
> >
> >PV
> >
> >
>
> Barefaced cheek.
>
> You criticising others for an inability to use apostrophes is akin to
> my telling someone off for swearing, PV.
>
> What's more, Peter's errors might in fact be the result of laziness
> rather than ignorance. Compare his _inaction_ with your very obvious
> _acion_ every time the greengrocer in you escapes.
>
Lately, anyway. But in Peter's case (note the apostrophe -- I'm
trying), it is just ingorance... ignorance all the way down, I'm
afraid.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
to 'very boring,' dirt posts yet another borrrriiiiiggggg comment.
> w00f
>
>
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:SVcd8.192164$Gb1.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> Please try to understand that your comment has NOTHING to
> do with the statement. The statement stands as fact.
Please try to understand that it has EVERYTHING to do with the
statement.
> And they wonder why I sometimes refer to some abolitionists
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:SVcd8.192164$Gb1.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
> > > degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
> >
> > Yes, of course I can. Incarceration.
> >
> No, of course, you cannot. Let's look at the data available.
> From the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for the years indicated,
> there were reported institutional murders of
> 1993 = 15
> 1994 = 14
> 1995 = 31
> 1996 -= 13
> 1997 = 19
> 1998 =13
> 1999 = 11
>
> So for the 7 years recorded, there were a total of 116 murders
> in prison.
Since One was referring to murders of wrongly convicted innocents in prison,
are you claiming that these 116 victims were all wrongly convicted? Was
even one sigle one of the victims wrongly convicted? Because if not, it
has no relevence whatsoever.
> And you well know the Furman inmate-commuted study
> showed that 315, of those who remained incarcerated,
> of the 558 cases examined, committed 6 PROVEN new
> murders. And they were ALL committed by capital murderers
> having been commuted from the DP.
As you well know, SEVEN of those that had their death penalties
overturned were later proven to be innocent.
As you well know, FOUR of those who were murdered were
themselves murderers who would have been executed anyway,
if not for Furman. As you well know, YOU, (not I), have said that
these murderers have no right to live. As you well know, these
four murder victims were people that YOU, (not I), wanted dead
anyway.
As you well know, pointing out the fact that you have concealed
this information does NOT mean that I agree with YOUR belief that
murderers should be killed. You usually claim it does.
As you well know, there were 613 prisonners had their death
sentences overturned, not the 315 you claimed previously, and
not the 558 you claim now.
As you well know, out of the 613 that had their sentences overturned,
613 remained in prison. Some of them were released a number of years
later. One killed again ouside prison.
As you well know, if the executions had proceeded, THREE deaths
would have been prevented, FOUR murderers would have been
executed sooner instead of being murdered later and SEVEN
innocent people would have been wrongly executed You appear to
consider this a good thing.
As you well know, every time you comment on this stud, you lie and
I prove you to be a liar. You must be a glutton for punishment.
> > > Incarceration you say? Not so. There are several cases of the wrongly
> > > convicted being killed while serving prison sentences. Scores of
innocent
> > > people have been killed while wrongly incarcerated.
> >
> > Please try to understand. Innocent people get murdered OUTSIDE
> > prison too. In fact innocent people are SAFER inside prison than
outside.
> Please try to understand that your comment has NOTHING to
> do with the statement. The statement stands as fact. The
> PRESUMPTION of incarceration is incapacitation WHILE
> incarcerated. We do not presume incapacitation of those
> who are NOT in prison. [waffle snipped] The statement says
> that prison incapacitation is FLAWED,
> and claims NOTHING in respect to the body of citizens at
> large. The statement is TRUE. That is undeniable. The
> statement as posed had nothing to do with your simplistic
> answer The point is that incarceration is
> NOT as absolute as execution. No murderer executed has
> EVER murdered again, IN or OUT of prison
Please try to understand that my comment has EVERYTHING
to do with the statement. One's argument was that incarcerating
an innocent person is exactly the same as executing him, because
there is a slight chance that he might be killed in prison. This is
true. And the counter argument is than an innocent person has
a risk of being killed outside prison.
.
If I'd thought about it longer before responding, I might have
pointed out the even better argument that an innocent person
in prison has a small chance of dying, while an innocent person
executed is certainly dead. One's claim is that certain death is the
same thing as a slight chance of death, which is obviously absurd.
You appear to interpret hisstatement as being about preventing murderers
from killing again. He said nothing about that. Your waflle about
"No murderer executed has EVER murdered again" has nothing
whatsoever to do with anything.
> > > Anyway, the wrongfully convicted in both cases are just as dead. And
> > > both died as direct results of being subjected to a criminal justice
> > > punishment.
> >
> > wrong. In one case the innocent person has been killed by
> > the state's ineptitude, in the other case he has been kileed by murder.
> >
> And they wonder why I sometimes refer to some abolitionists
> as possessing absolute NO MORALS, in arguing an indefensible
> position. Murder is ALWAYS unlawful. Penalties for crimes
> (any penalities, any crimes) are ALWAYS lawful. Whether they
> are moral or not, is quite a different consideration. You have
> made a fool of yourself before, with this statement which
> essentially claims that all homicide is murder, which is totally
> false.
Yet another PV non-sequitor. Where the hell do you get this stuff from?
You just keep on reading stuff into my posts which simply aren't there.
Then you attack the meaning you have added, rather than what I actually
said.
And you do this all the time. Now, take a look at what I said
[quote] "In one case the innocent person has been killed by the state's
ineptitude, in the other case he has been kileed by murder." [/quote]
YOU have read that sentence and attached
four bizarre meanings to it. You interpret what I said as meaning::
1) Murder is sometimes lawful
2) Penalties for crimes are unlawful
3) Lawful is the same as moral
4) All homicides are murder.
Where the hell does this come from?
Then you attack the meaning YOU attach to my words. Of
course, it doesn't mean any such thing. Where the hell do you
get this stuff from, anyway? I cannot see any connection at
all between what I wrote and what you said. Where the hell
do you get that stuff?
We've been in this situation so many times before. Your usual
behaviour at this point, when I point out that your interpretation
is wrong, is to claim that I am denying saying my original words.
Then you start screaming that I'm lying. Every single one of
your claims that I'm lying has been similar to this.
Why you do this is a mystery, since nobody takes you seriously.
In situations like this, EVERYBODY recognises that its you
that is twisting words .
> Why do you insist on further proving you're a fool?
Ah yes, insults, PV's usual response when he knows he's wrong.
> You are perhaps assuming the State cannot execute because it
> places an innocent life in jeopardy. But the fact is, providing a
> driver's licence to a citizen is 'accepting' the POSSIBILITY of that
> driver committing homicide on an innocent [waffle snipped]
Which is exactly the point I made to One. Innocents are killed outside
prison too. That's what I told him.As has happened so many times before,
you decide to lecture me on the same point I have already raised. Perhaps
you should READ what I say before you attack it. Maybe you can get
somebody to help you out with the long words.
> > Yes, its incarceration. Wake up and smell the coffee.
>
> Wrong...wrong....wrong. And you STILL do not know where
> the apostrophe key is on your keyboard.
Ah, here we see an example of PV's sheer desperation to find
anything at all wrong with my posts. So I missed an apostraphe.
Big deal. At least my posts contain a logical argument. Yours may
be correctly spelled and punctuated, but consist of thousands of
words of waffle, personal attacks, preening your own ego and temper
tantrums, and you never say anything meaningful. In your entire post
you said nothing that had any connection to the points I raised.
A Planet Visitor
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:SVcd8.192164$Gb1.28...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> > > > Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
> > > > degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
> > >
> > > Yes, of course I can. Incarceration.
> > >
> > No, of course, you cannot. Let's look at the data available.
> > From the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for the years indicated,
> > there were reported institutional murders of
> > 1993 = 15
> > 1994 = 14
> > 1995 = 31
> > 1996 -= 13
> > 1997 = 19
> > 1998 =13
> > 1999 = 11
> >
> > So for the 7 years recorded, there were a total of 116 murders
> > in prison.
>
> Since One was referring to murders of wrongly convicted innocents in prison,
> are you claiming that these 116 victims were all wrongly convicted? Was
> even one sigle one of the victims wrongly convicted? Because if not, it
> has no relevence whatsoever.
>
while in prison, is somehow GUILTY of being murdered? How
moral!!! My point was over 400 murders committed in
institutional murders in 25 years, convinces ANYONE who
wishes to look at those figures that the number of innocents in
that number (absolutely 2 at least of guards), demonstrates
that murders of innocents in prison in the past 25 years,
far exceeds any probability of more innocents being
executed.
> > And you well know the Furman inmate-commuted study
> > showed that 315, of those who remained incarcerated,
> > of the 558 cases examined, committed 6 PROVEN new
> > murders. And they were ALL committed by capital murderers
> > having been commuted from the DP.
>
> As you well know, SEVEN of those that had their death penalties
> overturned were later proven to be innocent.
>
As you know, that DOES NOT mean they were executed.
BTW -- those murdered WERE murdered.
> As you well know, FOUR of those who were murdered were
> themselves murderers who would have been executed anyway,
> if not for Furman.
Quite wrong... 4 of those who were murdered were PRISONERS
in the same institutions as their murderers. They were NOT
serving sentences for murder themselves, they just simply
happened to be in the same prison as those who murdered
them. From the report "All six institutional killers were serving
time for capital murder." This says NOTHING about their
victims, who were 4 other inmates serving time for various
crimes, and 2 institutional guards. Looking at some other
statistics of those from the Furman study who remained in
prison, we find 29 aggravated assault WITH a weapons, 113
aggravated assaults without a weapon, and 20 aggressive
sexual attacks, in prisoner-prisoner acts. And we also find
in addition to the 2 murders in prisoner-staff acts, there were
17 aggravated assaults WITH a weapon, 30 aggravated
assaults without a weapon, 17 escapes, and 30 rioting
acts. All committed by murderers having their DP
overturned by Furman. A GREAT bunch of guys!!!
Let us now return to the ORIGINAL question -- "Can you think
of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
degree, that does not risk innocent lives?" And your
droll answer -- "Yes, of course I can. Incarceration."
You can be very foolish, while looking quite the clown.
Are you presuming that 'guards' are not innocent as
well as those serving sentences for auto theft?
> As you well know, YOU, (not I), have said that
> these murderers have no right to live. As you well know, these
> four murder victims were people that YOU, (not I), wanted dead
> anyway.
>
Quite simply, you're a liar. Nothing personal... but you're
just a liar. It is YOU who has made the oblique reference
to the fact that perhaps they DESERVED to be murdered,
being 'criminals' and all. In your post "Subject: Re: The
risk to innocents if we don't execute" on 2001-05-30 13:35:10
PST. Where you wrote EXACTLY
"It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these
murders were criminals."
To which I replied "Why is that so, Peter? Perhaps you'd
now like to look at their race, and ethnic background as well?
I look at them as innocents. NO ONE DESERVES to be
murdered. To say that 'It has to be said,' is to sanction
vigilante justice as well."
Apparently YOU believe that 'criminals' are not the same as
'ordinary' people and perhaps DESERVE what they get, even
if 'innocent' of BEING murdered. You have NEVER seen
me say that I 'wanted' someone dead, even those who
ARE executed. I do not WANT anyone to be executed.
I feel it NECESSARY, in spite of the obvious fact that
by doing so we are ending a life, regardless of how depraved
that life is. It's a JOYLESS necessity, that I hardly WANT.
But neither do I WANT murder. Or to think they might
live out their days in joyful remembrance of their murders,
as the only thing sustaining them until they shuck their
mortal coil, with a contented smile on their face, some
40-50 years later. No, I do not WANT them dead... there
are just some that I can't stand the thought of them being
alive. If I have any WANT at all, in respect to them... I
WANT them to have NEVER existed.
Then I am reminded of another of your absurdities in our
past posts regarding the Furman study, where you said --
"The 615 Furman comutees went on to commit another 7
murders, six of these in prison and one outside. Four of
the victims were prisonners. The study states that six of
these were committed by felons serving time for capital
murder. (This strongly implies that the seventh was a first
time murder committed by a paroled rapist, not a *recidivist*
murder)."
How WRONG you were!! The Seventh was KENNETH
MCDUFF. Hardly a paroled rapist, and hardly having
committed only 'one' murder after his release. Plus we
also have Robert Lee Massie (See
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/massie703.htm
This disputes the ENTIRE conclusion of the Furman
study as there are now at LEAST 2 commuted through
Furman who committed murder again AFTER release.
I doubt seriously that the 'score' has been kept accurately.
But we ARE SURE of those two, and can only assume it
might be worse, but NEVER better.
> As you well know, pointing out the fact that you have concealed
> this information does NOT mean that I agree with YOUR belief that
> murderers should be killed. You usually claim it does.
>
No... you only think that 'It has to be said four out of seven of
the victims of these murders were criminals." When speaking
of the murdered victims of the Furman commuted murderers.
Apparently, not only murderers, but you believe all CRIMINALS
as well, DESERVE to be murdered.
> As you well know, there were 613 prisonners had their death
> sentences overturned, not the 315 you claimed previously, and
> not the 558 you claim now.
>
The STUDY refers to 558 of those 613. I am referring to the
STUDY, you moron. And I am referring to the statement in
the study which said "Of the 558 Furman-commuted inmates,
315 (56.5%) have not been released from prison." In addition,
it should also be noted that of those 315, three had escaped and
not been recaptured at the time of the study. Gee... wonder
what they're doing???
> As you well know, out of the 613 that had their sentences overturned,
> 613 remained in prison. Some of them were released a number of years
> later. One killed again ouside prison.
>
Two, AT LEAST... McDuff and Massie -- check it out
McDuff -- http://www.garylavergne.com/mcduffmugs.htm
Massie -- http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/massie703.htm
> As you well know, if the executions had proceeded, THREE deaths
> would have been prevented, FOUR murderers would have been
> executed sooner instead of being murdered later and SEVEN
> innocent people would have been wrongly executed You appear to
> consider this a good thing.
>
You never have been able to hone your skills as a liar. You
still come off so obvious. All murders committed by those
commuted under Furman would have been prevented had
the murderers committing those murders been executed.
None of the murders committed were committed on those
who had been commuted from the DP. They were ALL
committed BY the commuted DP prisoners on OTHERS.
> As you well know, every time you comment on this stud, you lie and
> I prove you to be a liar. You must be a glutton for punishment.
>
Yeah, right -- Like it needs to be said that criminals deserve
to be murdered, as YOU'VE implied.
That's NOT a counter argument. The statement CANNOT be
argued, since you admit it is a fact. Yours is a fact as well, but
does NOT negate the fact of the original claim. Thus it is not a
COUNTER to the argument, which would imply refuting or
disproving the argument, but simply another FACT. And a
rather stupidly obvious fact, since we KNOW that murder
is committed in open society. It is a fact which had no
meaning in respect to the argument. The argument is that
supposing incarceration will PRECLUDE the killing of
an innocent, which is a possibility in a sentence to the DP,
IS FLAWED. If society makes a mistake, and sentences
an innocent to the DP, and executes that innocent, an innocent
dies. If society makes a mistake and sentences an innocent
to incarceration, and that innocent is killed in prison, an innocent
dies.
> If I'd thought about it longer before responding, I might have
> pointed out the even better argument that an innocent person
> in prison has a small chance of dying, while an innocent person
> executed is certainly dead. One's claim is that certain death is the
> same thing as a slight chance of death, which is obviously absurd.
>
If you had thought about it longer, you would have kept your
yap shut completely. Dead IS dead. An innocent executed
(the quantity unknown) IS of course, dead. An innocent
murdered in prison (the quantity unknown) IS of course, dead.
Both are CERTAIN death. The point is in the quantity, not
in your presumption that execution of an innocent has somehow
become FACTUAL, while the murder of an innocent in prison
can only be assumed. Both are assumptions, and the end
result of both is that BOTH are dead. Both exhibit the
SAME 'slight chance of death,' you speak of.
Nonetheless, the point is we have executed ~750 PROVEN
murderers in 25 years. How MANY (the quantity) do you think
were INNOCENT? Now compare that against the murders
committed in institutional murders in those 25 years. Most
probably over 400. How many of those murders were committed
BY previous murderers (the quantity)? How many of THOSE
were murders of innocents (the quantity)? How many were
of prison staff (the quantity)? Certainly the 2 we know of. But
in fact they were ALL innocence. I can guarantee that ALL of
them did not DESERVE to be murdered, all 400, REGARDLESS.
There is NO SUCH THING as being 'guilty' of BEING murdered.
Since it is axiomatic that we accept the fact that MURDER is
an unacceptable result, REGARDLESS of the victim. Thus,
ALL of them were INNOCENT of BEING murdered. in spite of
your claim that 'It has to be said four out of seven of the victims
of these murders were criminals."
> You appear to interpret hisstatement as being about preventing murderers
> from killing again. He said nothing about that. Your waflle about
> "No murderer executed has EVER murdered again" has nothing
> whatsoever to do with anything.
>
I didn't think you'd believe my statement for one moment. It
has NOTHING to do with the validity of the statement. You just
have NEVER been able to separate fact from fantasy. It's
rather weird that you would call a FACTUAL STATEMENT
a 'waffle,' while you lie through your teeth, and 'waffle' about
your clear statement of your belief that criminals are somehow
different than ordinary people when they become victims of
murder. Since you consider it 'waffle' you must then believe
that 'no murderer NOT executed has ever murdered again.'
> > > > Anyway, the wrongfully convicted in both cases are just as dead. And
> > > > both died as direct results of being subjected to a criminal justice
> > > > punishment.
> > >
> > > wrong. In one case the innocent person has been killed by
> > > the state's ineptitude, in the other case he has been kileed by murder.
> > >
> > And they wonder why I sometimes refer to some abolitionists
> > as possessing absolute NO MORALS, in arguing an indefensible
> > position. Murder is ALWAYS unlawful. Penalties for crimes
> > (any penalities, any crimes) are ALWAYS lawful. Whether they
> > are moral or not, is quite a different consideration. You have
> > made a fool of yourself before, with this statement which
> > essentially claims that all homicide is murder, which is totally
> > false.
>
> Yet another PV non-sequitor. Where the hell do you get this stuff from?
> You just keep on reading stuff into my posts which simply aren't there.
> Then you attack the meaning you have added, rather than what I actually
> said.
> And you do this all the time. Now, take a look at what I said
>
> [quote] "In one case the innocent person has been killed by the state's
> ineptitude, in the other case he has been kileed by murder." [/quote]
>
> YOU have read that sentence and attached
> four bizarre meanings to it. You interpret what I said as meaning::
>
> 1) Murder is sometimes lawful
In the past you HAVE claimed that. Claiming 'The DP is murder.'
> 2) Penalties for crimes are unlawful
In the past you HAVE claimed that. See above.
> 3) Lawful is the same as moral
In the past you HAVE claimed that. Trolley problem, which
I will not rehash.
> 4) All homicides are murder.
Not actually, you defended as accurate the statement
"The DP is murder.' Not all homicides. Although in
a few of the posts in the Trolley problem, it was
obvious you were confused as to the difference.
>
> Where the hell does this come from?
>
> Then you attack the meaning YOU attach to my words. Of
> course, it doesn't mean any such thing. Where the hell do you
> get this stuff from, anyway? I cannot see any connection at
> all between what I wrote and what you said. Where the hell
> do you get that stuff?
>
> We've been in this situation so many times before. Your usual
> behaviour at this point, when I point out that your interpretation
> is wrong, is to claim that I am denying saying my original words.
> Then you start screaming that I'm lying. Every single one of
> your claims that I'm lying has been similar to this.
>
> Why you do this is a mystery, since nobody takes you seriously.
> In situations like this, EVERYBODY recognises that its you
> that is twisting words .
>
Well... I've apparently drawn you out. So, to clear things
up, you NO LONGER believe that 'The DP is murder,' as you so
foolishly argued on and on about some months ago? I quite
well knew what you implied, but you are so easy, and I
remembered our argument of some months back, where
you foolishly compared 'murder' to 'hunger,' in arguing the
DP is murder. And then shut your yap when shown the
error of your ways. While never admitting you were foolish
for offering that argument. And as you've done so often in the
past, retreating into personal insult. Ready to defend or
retract that claim? Ready to argue the unarguable again??
> > Why do you insist on further proving you're a fool?
>
> Ah yes, insults, PV's usual response when he knows he's wrong.
>
> > You are perhaps assuming the State cannot execute because it
> > places an innocent life in jeopardy. But the fact is, providing a
> > driver's licence to a citizen is 'accepting' the POSSIBILITY of that
> > driver committing homicide on an innocent [waffle snipped]
>
> Which is exactly the point I made to One. Innocents are killed outside
> prison too. That's what I told him.As has happened so many times before,
> you decide to lecture me on the same point I have already raised. Perhaps
> you should READ what I say before you attack it. Maybe you can get
> somebody to help you out with the long words.
>
The point is IT 'had no point' in respect to arguing that innocents
are NOT killed IN prison. That is a fact. Society has IMPROPERLY
incarcerated them, as much as it improperly executes an
innocent. And it has provided the ENVIRONMENT which
permitted such a murder. It did not COMMIT the murder, nor
does it commit murder when it executes an innocent (society
CANNOT commit murder, since it DEFINES the act in law).
But neither did it provide what it PROMISES to provide. Which
is incapacitation of those who would commit violent acts upon
innocents while in prison. Society never makes such a promise
in an open society. Only promising to search for and prosecute
someone who commits such violence. In fact, someone innocent
of ANY crime, is perhaps much more vulnerable to BEING
murdered in prison, then the average street-smart criminal, who
knows how to avoid those possibilities.
> > > Yes, its incarceration. Wake up and smell the coffee.
> >
> > Wrong...wrong....wrong. And you STILL do not know where
> > the apostrophe key is on your keyboard.
>
> Ah, here we see an example of PV's sheer desperation to find
> anything at all wrong with my posts. So I missed an apostraphe.
That would be 'two' apostraphe (sic). Do I see a trend of
stupidity developing?
> Big deal. At least my posts contain a logical argument.
ROTFLMAO. Your arguments are blatantly the stuff that
fertilizer is made of. Wild, confused, disjointed and improbable
LIES.
>Yours may
> be correctly spelled and punctuated, but consist of thousands of
> words of waffle, personal attacks, preening your own ego and temper
> tantrums, and you never say anything meaningful. In your entire post
> you said nothing that had any connection to the points I raised.
>
Actually, I totally shot down EVERY ONE of your ridiculous
'points.' As you so generously call them.
PV
Peter Morris
>
> > >
> > > So for the 7 years recorded, there were a total of 116 murders
> > > in prison.
> > Since One was referring to murders of wrongly convicted innocents in
prison,
> > are you claiming that these 116 victims were all wrongly convicted? Was
> > even one sigle one of the victims wrongly convicted? Because if not, it
> > has no relevence whatsoever.
PV is of course utterly unable to answer that point so he attempts
to twist my words and claim I said something stupid
> So you assume that someone convicted of a crime, ANY crime,
> while in prison, is somehow GUILTY of being murdered? How
> moral!!!
Of course, I said nothing remotely like that. Where the hell do you
get this from?
> > As you well know, YOU, (not I), have said that
> > these murderers have no right to live. As you well know, these
> > four murder victims were people that YOU, (not I), wanted dead
> > anyway.
> >
> Quite simply, you're a liar.
Translation : Peter has proved PV a liar yet agasin. PV has no
answer so he screams and hurls insults.
> Nothing personal... but you're
> just a liar. It is YOU who has made the oblique reference
> to the fact that perhaps they DESERVED to be murdered,
> being 'criminals' and all. In your post "Subject: Re: The
> risk to innocents if we don't execute" on 2001-05-30 13:35:10
> PST. Where you wrote EXACTLY
But quoting me out of context, hiding the fact that YOU had
said that guilty people DESERVE to be killed. Pointing this
out does not indicate that I agree with you . Far from it.
> "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these
> murders were criminals."
PV had said that criminals DESERVE to be killed.
Four of the people murdered were in fact criminals. People that
PV said DESERVED to be killed.
PV deliberately lied. He hid the fact that these four murder victims
were people that HE had said DESERVED to be killed. PV
claimed they were 'innocents.' But according to HIS standards,
they are not innocents. According to HIS standards, they
DESERVED to be killed.
> To which I replied "Why is that so, Peter? Perhaps you'd
> now like to look at their race, and ethnic background as well?
> I look at them as innocents. NO ONE DESERVES to be
> murdered. To say that 'It has to be said,' is to sanction
> vigilante justice as well."
It is so because YOU, not me, had said they DESERVED
to be killed. Pointing this out does NOT mean that I agree with you.
In fact YOUR statement that they DESERVE to be killed
disgusts me.
This is typical of your lack of logic: I point out your lies, and you
claim this indicates I agree with you on some foul concept.
This is one of many reasons I despise you so much.
> Apparently YOU believe that 'criminals' are not the same as
> 'ordinary' people and perhaps DESERVE what they get,
No, thats what YOU think, and I despise you for it.
You are desperate to twist my words to make it appear
that I agree with your, foul, disgusting concepts.
> > As you well know, there were 613 prisonners had their death
> > sentences overturned, not the 315 you claimed previously, and
> > not the 558 you claim now.
> >
> The STUDY refers to 558 of those 613. I am referring to the
> STUDY, you moron.
Actually, the STUDY referred to all 615. I am referring to the STUDY,
you retenionist.
> You never have been able to hone your skills as a liar.
You however are a great liar.
Practice makes perfect.
> You
> still come off so obvious. All murders committed by those
> commuted under Furman would have been prevented had
> the murderers committing those murders been executed.
> None of the murders committed were committed on those
> who had been commuted from the DP. They were ALL
> committed BY the commuted DP prisoners on OTHERS.
No. The study specifically states that the authorities were
unwilling to release the former death row inmates into the
general prison population. That means that the former death
row prisonners remained incarcerated alongside OTHER death
row prisonners. That means that the victims of these crimes
WERE former death row prisonners.
> > If I'd thought about it longer before responding, I might have
> > pointed out the even better argument that an innocent person
> > in prison has a small chance of dying, while an innocent person
> > executed is certainly dead. One's claim is that certain death is the
> > same thing as a slight chance of death, which is obviously absurd.
> >
> If you had thought about it longer, you would have kept your
> yap shut completely. Dead IS dead.
so, you think that a slight possibility of death is the same as certain
death? Lets see your next comment for the answer.
> An innocent executed
> (the quantity unknown) IS of course, dead. An innocent
> murdered in prison (the quantity unknown) IS of course, dead.
> Both are CERTAIN death.
Apparently you do.
> Nonetheless, the point is we have executed ~750 PROVEN
> murderers in 25 years. How MANY (the quantity) do you think
> were INNOCENT?
What I know for a fact is that many innocents have been sent
to death row, and then had their lives saved through the actions
of death penalty opponents. Many innocents WOULD have died, if
the antis HADN'T fought against the DP. It is entirely possible that
they have been 100% successful in preventing innocents from being
executed. The danger to innocents if they STOP opposing the DP is
CERTAINLY greater than the risk of recidivism.
> > You appear to interpret hisstatement as being about preventing murderers
> > from killing again. He said nothing about that. Your waflle about
> > "No murderer executed has EVER murdered again" has nothing
> > whatsoever to do with anything.
> I didn't think you'd believe my statement for one moment. It
> has NOTHING to do with the validity of the statement. You just
> have NEVER been able to separate fact from fantasy. It's
> rather weird that you would call a FACTUAL STATEMENT
> a 'waffle,' while you lie through your teeth, and 'waffle' about
> your clear statement of your belief that criminals are somehow
> different than ordinary people when they become victims of
> murder. Since you consider it 'waffle' you must then believe
> that 'no murderer NOT executed has ever murdered again.'
So you couldn't actually answer the point, then. All you do is waffle.
ONE made a clear statement, you misunderstood it. I point out
your lasck of reading comprehension skillsm, and you just huirl
abuse at me. No attempt to answer the point, just waffle and abuse.
> > > And they wonder why I sometimes refer to some abolitionists
> > > as possessing absolute NO MORALS, in arguing an indefensible
> > > position. Murder is ALWAYS unlawful. Penalties for crimes
> > > (any penalities, any crimes) are ALWAYS lawful. Whether they
> > > are moral or not, is quite a different consideration. You have
> > > made a fool of yourself before, with this statement which
> > > essentially claims that all homicide is murder, which is totally
> > > false.
> >
> > Yet another PV non-sequitor. Where the hell do you get this stuff from?
> > You just keep on reading stuff into my posts which simply aren't there.
> > Then you attack the meaning you have added, rather than what I actually
> > said.
> > And you do this all the time. Now, take a look at what I said
> >
> > [quote] "In one case the innocent person has been killed by the
state's
> > ineptitude, in the other case he has been kileed by murder." [/quote]
> >
> > YOU have read that sentence and attached
> > four bizarre meanings to it. You interpret what I said as meaning::
> >
> > 1) Murder is sometimes lawful
>
> In the past ...
Yes, here we go, PV caught out again, so he tries to draw
attention away from it, by attacking me for something I said
'in the past' This is hat he always does when he can't answer what
I say in the present.
Your twisted version of what I said 'in the past' is irrelevent.
In THIS thread I said "In one case the innocent person has been killed by
the state's ineptitude, in the other case he has been kileed by murder."
Your response was to THOSE particular words, and no other.
You were not responding to something I said 'in the past', you were
responding to words in THIS thread.
You interpreted THOSE words, and no other words as meaning
"murder is sometinmes lawful" Where did that come from? How do
you get from "In one case the innocent person has been killed by
the state's ineptitude, in the other case he has been kileed by murder."
to "murder is sometimes lawful" Where is the connection?
Where the hell do you get that stuff?
You also interpreted THOSE words, and no other words as
meaning:
- Penalties for crimes are unlawful
- Lawful is the same as moral
- All homicides are murder.
This was your interpretation of words used in THIS thread.
NOT of words I used in any other thread, but THIS one,
and I want you to explain where they come from.
Your quotes of what I said 'in the past' are wrong anyway. What
I actually said was totally different from that. These are merely your
interpretation of what I said. And it is a bizarre interpretation,
like your interpretation of the words "In one case the innocent person
has been killed by the state's ineptitude, in the other case he has
been kileed by murder." which you think means "all homicides
are murder"
> > Then you attack the meaning YOU attach to my words. Of
> > course, it doesn't mean any such thing. Where the hell do you
> > get this stuff from, anyway? I cannot see any connection at
> > all between what I wrote and what you said. Where the hell
> > do you get that stuff?
> >
> > We've been in this situation so many times before. Your usual
> > behaviour at this point, when I point out that your interpretation
> > is wrong, is to claim that I am denying saying my original words.
> > Then you start screaming that I'm lying. Every single one of
> > your claims that I'm lying has been similar to this.
> >
> > Why you do this is a mystery, since nobody takes you seriously.
> > In situations like this, EVERYBODY recognises that its you
> > that is twisting words .
It seems that PV does't actually have an answer to this. So
he does what he always does, tries to distract attention away from
it, by attacking me for something that I allegedly said many months
ago. He hopes that by involving me in an argument about who said
what in an argument many months ago, he will draw attention away
from losing the argument in this thread.
> Well... I've apparently drawn you out. So, to clear things
> up, you NO LONGER believe that 'The DP is murder,' as you so
> foolishly argued on and on about some months ago? I quite
> well knew what you implied, but you are so easy, and I
> remembered our argument of some months back, where
> you foolishly compared 'murder' to 'hunger' in arguing the
> DP is murder. And then shut your yap when shown the
> error of your ways. While never admitting you were foolish
> for offering that argument. And as you've done so often in the
> past, retreating into personal insult. Ready to defend or
> retract that claim? Ready to argue the unarguable again??
YOU raised the argument about 'hunger' not me, PV. You are
obviously deeply ashamed of it, and now try to attribute your
own words to me.
But you are trying to use insults to draw attention away from the point -
your lack of reading comprehension skills. The fact that people say
one thing, then you claim they said something else. The fact that you
read meanings into people's statements that just simply aren't there.
You don't have an answer for this do you?
One said that If society makes a mistake and sentences an innocent
to incarceration, and that innocent is killed in prison, an innocent
dies. You read that with your poor reading comprehension skills,
and thought that he said: if we don't execute murderers that may
murder again.
Where the hell do you get this suff?
I said "In one case the innocent person has been killed by
the state's ineptitude, in the other case he has been kileed by
murder." You read that with your poor reading comprehension
skills and claimed I had said "all homicide is murder"
Where the hell do you get this stuff?
And of course, lets not forget: you claim that guilty people deserve
to be killed. You say its ok to kill guilty people to save innocents.
You told a tale of how we could have killed guilty people, and
didn't so innocents died. I pointed out that you were lying. I pointed
out that some of the guilty people you wanted to kill were in fact
innocent, and some of the 'innocent' people you wanted to save
were in fact guilty. You knew this, and you deliberately hid it. I pointed
out your lies, and you read it with your poor reading comprehension
skills, and thought I agreed with your statement that guilty people
should be killed.
Where the hell do you get this stuff?
You don't have any answer to this, so you draw attention away from it,
by attacking me for things I allegedly said months ago. You hope
that I will be drawn into an argument about who said what, all that time
ago, and that everybody will forget your foolishness in the current thread.
Even for a retentionist you're pathetic.
> > > Why do you insist on further proving you're a fool?
> >
> > Ah yes, insults, PV's usual response when he knows he's wrong.
The rest of PV's infantile insults snipped
A Planet Visitor
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:rXxd8.205519$Gb1.30...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
>
> > > >
> > > > So for the 7 years recorded, there were a total of 116 murders
> > > > in prison.
>
>
> > > Since One was referring to murders of wrongly convicted innocents in
> prison,
> > > are you claiming that these 116 victims were all wrongly convicted? Was
> > > even one sigle one of the victims wrongly convicted? Because if not, it
> > > has no relevence whatsoever.
>
> PV is of course utterly unable to answer that point so he attempts
> to twist my words and claim I said something stupid
>
some who were innocent EVEN under your absurd conclusion
that criminals are somehow 'guilty' to the point they deserve
to be murdered.
> > So you assume that someone convicted of a crime, ANY crime,
> > while in prison, is somehow GUILTY of being murdered? How
> > moral!!!
>
> Of course, I said nothing remotely like that. Where the hell do you
> get this from?
>
But of course you did. You have said "I dont dispute that plenty
of people *deserve* to be killed." And you have said "It has
to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders
were criminals." Those four having been murdered in prison.
This obviously implies that those four are NOT QUITE as
undeserved of murder as others. Being deserved implies
they have somehow been guilty of deserving murder.
>
> > > As you well know, YOU, (not I), have said that
> > > these murderers have no right to live. As you well know, these
> > > four murder victims were people that YOU, (not I), wanted dead
> > > anyway.
> > >
> > Quite simply, you're a liar.
>
> Translation : Peter has proved PV a liar yet agasin. PV has no
> answer so he screams and hurls insults.
>
Quite simply I have PROVEN you to be one, on numerous
occasions and now will again prove it with a DIRECT and
complete comment you offered.
<clipped and answered in a separate post for emphasis>
> Four of the people murdered were in fact criminals. People that
> PV said DESERVED to be killed.
>
Not a chance. Actually it was YOU that said you don't
doubt that fact. While I have NEVER said 'criminals' deserve
to be killed. See the other post for PROOF of my statement.
> PV deliberately lied. He hid the fact that these four murder victims
> were people that HE had said DESERVED to be killed. PV
> claimed they were 'innocents.' But according to HIS standards,
> they are not innocents. According to HIS standards, they
> DESERVED to be killed.
>
I have NEVER said such a thing. The words are YOURS.
See above and the other post.
>
> > To which I replied "Why is that so, Peter? Perhaps you'd
> > now like to look at their race, and ethnic background as well?
> > I look at them as innocents. NO ONE DESERVES to be
> > murdered. To say that 'It has to be said,' is to sanction
> > vigilante justice as well."
>
> It is so because YOU, not me, had said they DESERVED
> to be killed. Pointing this out does NOT mean that I agree with you.
> In fact YOUR statement that they DESERVE to be killed
> disgusts me.
>
Not a chance, you lying sack of shit. If you read your
words above, it is ONLY you who has ever said you
do not "dispute that plenty of people *deserve* to be killed."
Not only are you a liar, but you are a hypocrite as well.
> This is typical of your lack of logic: I point out your lies, and you
> claim this indicates I agree with you on some foul concept.
> This is one of many reasons I despise you so much.
>
What actually happens is I QUOTE you directly and you
claim after some time that it was I who said what you
actually said. What does that make you?
> > Apparently YOU believe that 'criminals' are not the same as
> > 'ordinary' people and perhaps DESERVE what they get,
>
> No, thats what YOU think, and I despise you for it.
>
No... it's PROVEN that's what you think. IN YOUR OWN
WORDS. But regardless, it's not despise that I feel for
you, but a deep well of pity.
> You are desperate to twist my words to make it appear
> that I agree with your, foul, disgusting concepts.
>
ROTFLMAO. Insults from you roll right off me.
>
> > > As you well know, there were 613 prisonners had their death
> > > sentences overturned, not the 315 you claimed previously, and
> > > not the 558 you claim now.
> > >
> > The STUDY refers to 558 of those 613. I am referring to the
> > STUDY, you moron.
>
> Actually, the STUDY referred to all 615. I am referring to the STUDY,
> you retenionist.
>
Actually the STUDY referred to 558. Quoting from the
study at the VERY first description comment "This study is
a descriptive analysis of the institutional and post-release
behavior of 558 Furman-commuted inmates in thirty states
and the District of Columbia. You can hardly claim that
those who were NOT part of the study, were 'part of the
study.'
> > You never have been able to hone your skills as a liar.
>
> You however are a great liar.
> Practice makes perfect.
>
I've always found your arguments to be highly spacious,
and NEVER contain direct quotes, but rather dirty little
implications which only end up proving your lies.
> > You
> > still come off so obvious. All murders committed by those
> > commuted under Furman would have been prevented had
> > the murderers committing those murders been executed.
> > None of the murders committed were committed on those
> > who had been commuted from the DP. They were ALL
> > committed BY the commuted DP prisoners on OTHERS.
>
> No. The study specifically states that the authorities were
> unwilling to release the former death row inmates into the
> general prison population. That means that the former death
> row prisonners remained incarcerated alongside OTHER death
> row prisonners. That means that the victims of these crimes
> WERE former death row prisonners.
>
How can you lie like that? The only mention in the study of
separation from the general population was the comment that
"Custodial Officers, psychiatrists and prison administrators
feared the release of the Furman-commuted inmates into
the general prison population." This based on an interview with
ONE ex-warden of the Texas Prison System in Huntsville,
Alabama, whose name was withheld at his request. A VERY
reliable source!!! In another part of the study it states "nearly
all of the Furman-inmates are eligible and will soon be
reviewed for parole." And those who were paroled spent an
average of 9 and a half years in the general prison population.
Do you think they segregate those having the possibility of
parole in the future? You are as full of shit as a Christmas
goose. Segregation of prisoners not sentenced to death is
not permissible in many states, unless offenses are committed
WITHIN the confines of prison, after already having become
prisoners. You cannot make stupid claims like that
unless you can provide proof, which I KNOW you cannot
because it DOES NOT HAPPEN. Those murders of prisoners
by Furman-commuted murderers were NOT committed on
other Furman-commuted murderers. They were committed
on prisoners in the general prison population. qed: Simply
more Peter lies.
>
> > > If I'd thought about it longer before responding, I might have
> > > pointed out the even better argument that an innocent person
> > > in prison has a small chance of dying, while an innocent person
> > > executed is certainly dead. One's claim is that certain death is the
> > > same thing as a slight chance of death, which is obviously absurd.
> > >
> > If you had thought about it longer, you would have kept your
> > yap shut completely. Dead IS dead.
>
> so, you think that a slight possibility of death is the same as certain
> death? Lets see your next comment for the answer.
>
I think that the slight possibility of death of an innocent
at the hands of a murderer in prison is MORE than the
slight possibility that society will execute that innocent.
Both are CERTAIN to cause death when they happen.
IF and WHEN they will happen is quite another matter,
and BOTH are UNCERTAIN possibilities.
> > An innocent executed
> > (the quantity unknown) IS of course, dead. An innocent
> > murdered in prison (the quantity unknown) IS of course, dead.
> > Both are CERTAIN death.
>
> Apparently you do.
>
I think both possibilities are SLIGHT. And I think the
OUTCOME IS CERTAIN (they will be dead in EITHER
case), when that slight possibility happens.
>
> > Nonetheless, the point is we have executed ~750 PROVEN
> > murderers in 25 years. How MANY (the quantity) do you think
> > were INNOCENT?
>
> What I know for a fact is that many innocents have been sent
> to death row, and then had their lives saved through the actions
> of death penalty opponents. Many innocents WOULD have died, if
> the antis HADN'T fought against the DP. It is entirely possible that
> they have been 100% successful in preventing innocents from being
> executed. The danger to innocents if they STOP opposing the DP is
> CERTAINLY greater than the risk of recidivism.
>
What I know for a fact is that you do not know ANYTHING
for a fact in respect to innocents executed, murdered in
prison, or languishing in prison. Your presumption is that
retentionists are not just as much interested in arriving at
the truth, as the abolitionist. This is of course, a false
presumption. Nonetheless, ACTUAL guilt or innocence of
someone found 'legally' innocent, through the efforts of
ANYONE is impossible to ascertain. Nor can we say that
those ACTUALLY guilty have not also been freed through
the efforts of ANYONE, between trial and execution.
Nor can we say that if those ACTUALLY guilty have
been freed by the efforts of abolitionists they have not
caused further murder of innocents. It's ALL conjecture.
>
> > > You appear to interpret hisstatement as being about preventing murderers
> > > from killing again. He said nothing about that. Your waflle about
> > > "No murderer executed has EVER murdered again" has nothing
> > > whatsoever to do with anything.
>
> > I didn't think you'd believe my statement for one moment. It
> > has NOTHING to do with the validity of the statement. You just
> > have NEVER been able to separate fact from fantasy. It's
> > rather weird that you would call a FACTUAL STATEMENT
> > a 'waffle,' while you lie through your teeth, and 'waffle' about
> > your clear statement of your belief that criminals are somehow
> > different than ordinary people when they become victims of
> > murder. Since you consider it 'waffle' you must then believe
> > that 'no murderer NOT executed has ever murdered again.'
>
> So you couldn't actually answer the point, then. All you do is waffle.
> ONE made a clear statement, you misunderstood it. I point out
> your lasck of reading comprehension skillsm, and you just huirl
> abuse at me. No attempt to answer the point, just waffle and abuse.
>
What point? That executed murderers cannot murder again
is 'waffle'?
>
> > > > And they wonder why I sometimes refer to some abolitionists
> > > > as possessing absolute NO MORALS, in arguing an indefensible
> > > > position. Murder is ALWAYS unlawful. Penalties for crimes
> > > > (any penalities, any crimes) are ALWAYS lawful. Whether they
> > > > are moral or not, is quite a different consideration. You have
> > > > made a fool of yourself before, with this statement which
> > > > essentially claims that all homicide is murder, which is totally
> > > > false.
> > >
> > > Yet another PV non-sequitor. Where the hell do you get this stuff from?
> > > You just keep on reading stuff into my posts which simply aren't there.
> > > Then you attack the meaning you have added, rather than what I actually
> > > said.
> > > And you do this all the time. Now, take a look at what I said
> > >
> > > [quote] "In one case the innocent person has been killed by the
> state's
> > > ineptitude, in the other case he has been kileed by murder." [/quote]
> > >
> > > YOU have read that sentence and attached
> > > four bizarre meanings to it. You interpret what I said as meaning::
> > >
> > > 1) Murder is sometimes lawful
> >
> > In the past ...
>
> Yes, here we go, PV caught out again, so he tries to draw
> attention away from it, by attacking me for something I said
> 'in the past' This is hat he always does when he can't answer what
> I say in the present.
>
Are you prepared to DENY the validity of what you've written
in the past? Do you change your story from thread to thread?
> Your twisted version of what I said 'in the past' is irrelevent.
>
> In THIS thread I said "In one case the innocent person has been killed by
> the state's ineptitude, in the other case he has been kileed by murder."
>
> Your response was to THOSE particular words, and no other.
> You were not responding to something I said 'in the past', you were
> responding to words in THIS thread.
>
> You interpreted THOSE words, and no other words as meaning
> "murder is sometinmes lawful" Where did that come from? How do
> you get from "In one case the innocent person has been killed by
> the state's ineptitude, in the other case he has been kileed by murder."
> to "murder is sometimes lawful" Where is the connection?
>
I believe it was YOU who made the extrapolation that
murder could be 'lawful,' when you claimed that 'The DP
is murder,' had some validity.
> Where the hell do you get that stuff?
>
> You also interpreted THOSE words, and no other words as
> meaning:
>
> - Penalties for crimes are unlawful
> - Lawful is the same as moral
> - All homicides are murder.
>
> This was your interpretation of words used in THIS thread.
> NOT of words I used in any other thread, but THIS one,
> and I want you to explain where they come from.
>
> Your quotes of what I said 'in the past' are wrong anyway. What
> I actually said was totally different from that. These are merely your
> interpretation of what I said. And it is a bizarre interpretation,
> like your interpretation of the words "In one case the innocent person
> has been killed by the state's ineptitude, in the other case he has
> been kileed by murder." which you think means "all homicides
> are murder"
>
Lies...lies...lies...
>
<clipped pitiful lies... tired of having to research and
demonstrate Peter having done so>
> And of course, lets not forget: you claim that guilty people deserve
> to be killed.
Another lie.
> You say its ok to kill guilty people to save innocents.
Another lie.
> You told a tale of how we could have killed guilty people, and
> didn't so innocents died.
Quite true.
> I pointed out that you were lying.
Hardly. I have already given you a LONG LIST of guilty
people who if we had executed would have saved a
considerable number of innocents lives. I have named
NAMES. Clearly, accurately and totally. Quite simply
one name fills the bill of the proof of my statement --
Kenneth McDuff. That is not to say we 'could have'
in the sense of doing so in spite of his DP being
overturned. But clearly in the sense of IF that sentence
had not been overturned and the DP still existed at
that time. Quite clearly if Randy Greenawalt had been
executed a great number of innocents would undoubtedly
be alive today. Are you prepared to refute the argument
which shows that proven and convicted guilty murderers,
were NOT executed and murdered new INNOCENT victims
after those convictions?
>I pointed
> out that some of the guilty people you wanted to kill were in fact
> innocent, and some of the 'innocent' people you wanted to save
> were in fact guilty.
You keep mixing up what I 'want' and what I feel necessary.
Obviously it is YOU who has said 'I don't dispute that
plenty of people *deserve* to be killed." So perhaps it is
YOU that 'wants.' But HOW can someone be 'guilty'
of 'being murdered'? That's the CENTRAL question here,
that you continually avoid. You have claimed the 4
victims of Furman-commuted murderers WERE 'guilty.'
Guilty of WHAT??? Guilty of BEING murdered???
>
You knew this, and you deliberately hid it. I pointed
> out your lies, and you read it with your poor reading comprehension
> skills, and thought I agreed with your statement that guilty people
> should be killed.
>
> Where the hell do you get this stuff?
>
From your OWN WORDS, my friend.
> You don't have any answer to this, so you draw attention away from it,
> by attacking me for things I allegedly said months ago. You hope
> that I will be drawn into an argument about who said what, all that time
> ago, and that everybody will forget your foolishness in the current
> thread.
>
Actually, I hope you forget all about it, because showing you
to be such a liar here, I really don't need to waste my time
proving it in trivial examples. Here we have a pretty clear
cut case. I have NEVER said any of that rubbish you claim
I've said regarding 'criminals deserve to be killed.' In fact, it
was YOU who implied even worse in referring to those who
DESERVE to be killed. See my other post.
> Even for a retentionist you're pathetic.
>
And you are pathetic as a human, sport.
> > > > Why do you insist on further proving you're a fool?
> > >
> > > Ah yes, insults, PV's usual response when he knows he's wrong.
>
> The rest of PV's infantile insults snipped
PV
A Planet Visitor
part so clearly demonstrates Peter Morris lies, that I need
to insure it stands out starkly. This is that post. A response
to the remainder is in another post.
"Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
news:a5dqd9$li2$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:rXxd8.205519$Gb1.30...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
<clipped>
PV wrote --
> > Nothing personal... but you're
> > just a liar. It is YOU who has made the oblique reference
> > to the fact that perhaps they DESERVED to be murdered,
> > being 'criminals' and all. In your post "Subject: Re: The
> > risk to innocents if we don't execute" on 2001-05-30 13:35:10
> > PST. Where you wrote EXACTLY
>
Peter wrote --
> But quoting me out of context, hiding the fact that YOU had
> said that guilty people DESERVE to be killed. Pointing this
> out does not indicate that I agree with you . Far from it.
>
PV now Responds --
Hardly out of context. The sentence stood within two comments
of my own, and SPEAKS for itself. Check it out, good
people, and see WHO lies.
PV quoted DIRECTLY a complete thought presented by
Peter in a previous post --
> > "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these
> > murders were criminals."
>
Peter LIES in response --
> PV had said that criminals DESERVE to be killed.
>
PV now responds and quotes DIRECTLY from the previous
comments of Peter and myself --
I have searched all of google for a post from me containing
the simple phrase "deserve to be killed." Funny enough
it came up with 2 results BOTH of which showed that
I was RESPONDING to someone who used that phrase,
having never used it myself. One was in response to a
proven one-time troll calling himself 'Wankyfish the
exterminator,' who was a retentionist with a sick mind that
I provided an insult to in response. And the other poster
I responded to was PETER. In the thread
Re: Abolitionist's Dctionary (revised edition), where PETER
wrote -- "I dont dispute that plenty of people *deserve* to
be killed. Only that if we give them "what they deserve"
then we become evil ourselves in the process."
So it seems that PETER HAS said 'plenty of people,' and not
even limited it to criminals in the belief that they
'deserve' to be killed. Talk about a liar AND a hypocrite.
What 'I' then said in that thread as a RESPONSE was "I believe
CERTAIN murderers deserve the DP."
Now that can hardly be seen as referring to 'plenty of people,'
or 'criminals' as Peter claimed.
I further said in that past thread "The fact is, I believe the DP
should be reserved for only the most egregious murder(er)s,
those quite simply almost without a doubt to be recidivist in
nature."
I can provide complete references to ANY of the comments
that I state are DIRECT QUOTES of both Peter and myself.
Since I have provided those DIRECT quotes from our posts,
I would now demand that Peter provide one of mine that
shows a comment from me of 'criminals deserve to be killed.'
Unless that proof can be shown then clearly, the recognition
of Peter as a 'lying sack of shit,' is hereby fully substantiated.
Peter further LIES by then stating --
> Four of the people murdered were in fact criminals. People that
> PV said DESERVED to be killed.
>
PV Concludes --
PV has demonstrated that Peter LIES. I have never
said that people deserve to be murdered. In fact, that's
WHAT Peter has implied. What kind of an abolitionist
feels that -- people deserve to be killed (murdered) --.
<rest clipped and responded to in the other post>
PV
dirtdog
<pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote:
>Le Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:28:47 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a Ć©crit :
>
>> I need to reply to this post in two parts, since one particular
>> part so clearly demonstrates Peter Morris lies, that I need
>> to insure it stands out starkly. This is that post. A response
>> to the remainder is in another post.
>
>Yada, yada, yada ... Christ, then you wonder why people think you're a
>sanctimonious, pompous old hot-air-filled cunt ?
>
>{ snip 'trouser cough' }
Ask him to tell you about how a hot-air-filled cunt is actually and
envelope and how it has a personality, emotions, three children and
the OBVIOUS right to defend itself.
w00f
Exador
> Le Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:24:57 +0000, dirtdog <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> a Ć©crit :
>
>
>>>>I need to reply to this post in two parts, since one particular
>>>>part so clearly demonstrates Peter Morris lies, that I need
>>>>to insure it stands out starkly. This is that post. A response
>>>>to the remainder is in another post.
>>>>
>
>>>Yada, yada, yada ... Christ, then you wonder why people think you're a
>>>sanctimonious, pompous old hot-air-filled cunt ?
>>>
>
>>Ask him to tell you about how a hot-air-filled cunt is actually and
>>envelope and how it has a personality, emotions, three children and
>>the OBVIOUS right to defend itself.
>>
>
> OK ... 'ere, PV: how is a hot-air-filled cunt actually an envelope and how
> does it have a personality, emotions, three children and the OBVIOUS right
> to defend itself ?
>
>
And a merkin in a ponytail
Cheers,
Craig
One
Peter Morris <no_sp...@se.com> wrote:
>
>"One" <cold...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>
>> I'd like to pose a challenge to readers of this newsgroup, particularly
>> anti-dp'ers:
>>
>> Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
>> degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
>
>Yes, of course I can. Incarceration.
>
>> Incarceration you say? Not so. There are several cases of the wrongly
>> convicted being killed while serving prison sentences. Scores of innocent
>> people have been killed while wrongly incarcerated.
>
>Please try to understand. Innocent people get murdered OUTSIDE
>prison too. In fact innocent people are SAFER inside prison than outside.
1) The fact people are murdered outside prison is utterly irrelevant.
My assertion is that innocents die from being subject to incarceration.
You didn't deal with my assertion at all.
2) Ultimately it matters not a whit to my argument if all innocents were
in fact safer in prison. Incarceration remains a penalty which risks,
and in fact costs the lives of the wrongly convicted. DP Opponents have
falsely claimed that incarceration is a completely safe alternative to
the DP. Innocent lives are routinely claimed by incarceration.
Incarceration creates risks to innocents. These risks arise from confining
large numbers of violent offenders in confined areas for periods of time,
against their will. The risk is observably realized many times each year.
3) You make the common mistake of assuming the risk for non-violent
innocents is the same as the more violent who are better able to
protect themselves. A truly non-violent person is at greater risk
since he is unlikely to be able to defend himself in the prison
environment. The risk to an OJ Simpson is going to be less than the
risk to a 115 pound, mousy, confrontation-averse accountant who has
never so much as has been in a shoving match in his life. A full
grown bull elephant is at much less risk from a lion than is a new
born elephant calf. Similarly, Simpson, an incredibly strong, quick
and violent man is going to be able to better protect himself than
the accountant.
>> The issue of the innocent executed is a red herring.
>
>wrong.
>
>> There is no criminal justice punishment (which restrains criminals to
>> some degree) that does not risk innocent lives.
>
>Yes there is. Its incarceration
Simply repeating a disproven assertion does not make it true. See above.
"Is too! Is too!" tends not to be a compelling argument.
>> Some anti-'s suggest that being wrongfully executed is just not 'like'
>> being killed in jail by another prisoner - that the state is not doing
>> it. But the state is doing it
>
>wrong. Its the murdere who did it, not 'the state'
Yes, but who put the wrongfully convicted in the prison with the murderer?
The state. Why? As a punishment. What happened? The innocent was killed.
Who is ultimately responsible for the wrongfully convicted's death is a
question for the tort lawyers. The fact is, the result remains the same
whether the state wrongfully executed the innocent, or put him in with
a murderer who turns around and murders him. The result is a dead innocent
resulting from a criminal justice punishment.
Which again, just supports my point that incarceration is not a safe
alternative to the death penalty.
Who is legally responsible may be terribly important to you, but is
ultimately irrelevant. The undeniable result remains an innocent dead
from being subject to a criminal justice punishment.
Anti-dp'ers have claimed incarceration as a safe alternative to the DP.
It obviously is not. There are those who claim to oppose the DP on the
basis that it risks innocent lives, and put forth incarceration as an
alternative which does not. That argument is not true. Incarceration
not only risks innocent lives, it observably costs innocent lives.
>>- putting the convicted in the midst of
>> large numbers of violent offenders, against the convicted's will. It's
>> like throwing someone into an arena of lions and saying, "I didn't kill
>> him, the lions did."
>>
>> Putting a truly nonviolent individual in the midst of violent offenders
>> would be like putting him into a shark tank.
>>
>> Anyway, the wrongfully convicted in both cases are just as dead. And
>> both died as direct results of being subjected to a criminal justice
>> punishment.
>
>wrong. In one case the innocent person has been killed by
>the state's ineptitude, in the other case he has been kileed by murder.
Regardless of how you wish to characterize it, the hard fact remains that
the innocent died as a result of being subject to a criminal justice
punishment. One punishment was incarceration. The other was execution.
>> Can you think of a criminal justice punishment which restrains criminals
>> to some degree, that does not risk the wrongfully convicted's life?
>
>Yes, its incarceration. Wake up and smell the coffee.
I would urge you to take your own advice.
- ABJ
Peter Morris
>
>
> Peter Morris <no_sp...@se.com> wrote:
> >
> >"One" <cold...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> I'd like to pose a challenge to readers of this newsgroup, particularly
> >> anti-dp'ers:
> >>
> >> Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
> >> degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
> >
> >Yes, of course I can. Incarceration.
> >
> >> Incarceration you say? Not so. There are several cases of the wrongly
> >> convicted being killed while serving prison sentences. Scores of
innocent
> >> people have been killed while wrongly incarcerated.
> >
> >Please try to understand. Innocent people get murdered OUTSIDE
> >prison too. In fact innocent people are SAFER inside prison than outside.
>
> 1) The fact people are murdered outside prison is utterly irrelevant.
> My assertion is that innocents die from being subject to incarceration.
> You didn't deal with my assertion at all.
Actually, it is completely relevant. I answered your assertion completely.
> 2) Ultimately it matters not a whit to my argument if all innocents were
> in fact safer in prison. Incarceration remains a penalty which risks,
> and in fact costs the lives of the wrongly convicted. DP Opponents have
> falsely claimed that incarceration is a completely safe alternative to
> the DP. Innocent lives are routinely claimed by incarceration.
Who has claimed its a COMPLETELY safe alternative?
NOTHING is 'completely safe' but imprisonment isd safer than
many alternatives.
For a wrongly accused person, which is what you were talking about,
prison is safer than execution. Not completly safe, but safer than
the alternative.
> Incarceration creates risks to innocents. These risks arise from
confining
> large numbers of violent offenders in confined areas for periods of
time,
> against their will. The risk is observably realized many times each
year.
OK, I'll bite. How many times per year? Remember, you are talking
about wrongly accused people. How often does it happen that a person
murdered in prison turns out not to be guilty of the crime that put him
in prison?
[ Note to Planet Visitor. You usually manage to misunderstand
me when I write this sort of thing. I am merely asking One to
back up HIS claims with facts. Thias should not be taken as indicating
my opinions, and certainly does not mean I agree with you when you
think that guilty people deserve to be murdered. ]
> 3) You make the common mistake of assuming the risk for non-violent
> innocents is the same as the more violent who are better able to
> protect themselves. A truly non-violent person is at greater risk
> since he is unlikely to be able to defend himself in the prison
> environment. The risk to an OJ Simpson
You're saying he's innocent?
> is going to be less than the
> risk to a 115 pound, mousy, confrontation-averse accountant who has
> never so much as has been in a shoving match in his life. A full
> grown bull elephant is at much less risk from a lion than is a new
> born elephant calf. Similarly, Simpson, an incredibly strong, quick
> and violent man is going to be able to better protect himself than
> the accountant.
>
>
> >> The issue of the innocent executed is a red herring.
> >
> >wrong.
> >
> >> There is no criminal justice punishment (which restrains criminals to
> >> some degree) that does not risk innocent lives.
> >
> >Yes there is. Its incarceration
>
> Simply repeating a disproven assertion does not make it true. See above.
> "Is too! Is too!" tends not to be a compelling argument.
Simply claiming that its been disproven does not make it so. See above.
>
> >> Some anti-'s suggest that being wrongfully executed is just not 'like'
> >> being killed in jail by another prisoner - that the state is not doing
> >> it. But the state is doing it
> >
> >wrong. Its the murdere who did it, not 'the state'
>
> Yes, but who put the wrongfully convicted in the prison with the murderer?
> The state. Why? As a punishment. What happened? The innocent was killed.
You are missing a pretty basic point here. If you put a wrongly accused
person in prison, there is a slim CHANCE that he might die. If you
execute a wrongly accused person, he is CERTAINLY dead.
You claim that one death is the same as another death. That may be true.
But a slim chance is not the same as a certainty. That's the difference.
> Who is ultimately responsible for the wrongfully convicted's death is a
> question for the tort lawyers. The fact is, the result remains the same
> whether the state wrongfully executed the innocent, or put him in with
> a murderer who turns around and murders him. The result is a dead innocent
> resulting from a criminal justice punishment.
>
> Which again, just supports my point that incarceration is not a safe
> alternative to the death penalty.
>
> Who is legally responsible may be terribly important to you, but is
> ultimately irrelevant. The undeniable result remains an innocent dead
> from being subject to a criminal justice punishment.
>
> Anti-dp'ers have claimed incarceration as a safe alternative to the DP.
> It obviously is not. There are those who claim to oppose the DP on the
> basis that it risks innocent lives, and put forth incarceration as an
> alternative which does not. That argument is not true. Incarceration
> not only risks innocent lives, it observably costs innocent lives.
Your whole argument is flawed, IMHO. Youy point out that wrongly
accused persons are sometimes murderedin prison. Your solution
to this is to execute the wrongly accused persons, so to protect them
from being murdered.
That is possibly the least convincing pro-dp argument I have ever heard.
What about persons wrongly accused of shoplifting? They might
be murdered in prison too. Should we execute them as well?
According to you, being executed is exactly the same as being murdered,
so whats the difference.
[ Note to PV - I am DISAGREEING with him on this point. The
previous paragraph is something called sarcasm. I have to explain
this to you because you usually manage to interpret this sort of thing
literally ]
--
______________________________
/____________________________(_)
| ___________________________ email to
| | |________________________(_) Peter_Morris_1
| |/__________________________ at Hotmail dot com
|____________________________(_)
Benny Deeni
I would like to see ONE's response to this, but if you want to
be honest *you* have to also present evidence to back up your position.
How many innocents have been executed in the last 30 or so years?
<snip>
> >
> > Simply repeating a disproven assertion does not make it true. See above.
> > "Is too! Is too!" tends not to be a compelling argument.
>
> Simply claiming that its been disproven does not make it so. See above.
But you've provided not even one example of an innocent person
being executed, so I don't see how it's possible you've "won"
the point.
>
> >
> > >> Some anti-'s suggest that being wrongfully executed is just not 'like'
> > >> being killed in jail by another prisoner - that the state is not doing
> > >> it. But the state is doing it
> > >
> > >wrong. Its the murdere who did it, not 'the state'
> >
> > Yes, but who put the wrongfully convicted in the prison with the murderer?
> > The state. Why? As a punishment. What happened? The innocent was killed.
>
> You are missing a pretty basic point here. If you put a wrongly accused
> person in prison, there is a slim CHANCE that he might die. If you
> execute a wrongly accused person, he is CERTAINLY dead.
You are comparing apples and oranges. The point concerns the likelihood
of a "wrongly accused person" dying (either via imprisonment or execution).
A "wrongly accused person" dying in prison is "CERTAINLY dead" also.
>
> You claim that one death is the same as another death. That may be true.
> But a slim chance is not the same as a certainty. That's the difference.
Again, this reasoning is flawed. It's not a "certainty" that a wrongly
accused person sentenced to death will actually be executed. In fact,
you haven't even provided one example in this discussion.
>
> > Who is ultimately responsible for the wrongfully convicted's death is a
> > question for the tort lawyers. The fact is, the result remains the same
> > whether the state wrongfully executed the innocent, or put him in with
> > a murderer who turns around and murders him. The result is a dead innocent
> > resulting from a criminal justice punishment.
> >
> > Which again, just supports my point that incarceration is not a safe
> > alternative to the death penalty.
> >
> > Who is legally responsible may be terribly important to you, but is
> > ultimately irrelevant. The undeniable result remains an innocent dead
> > from being subject to a criminal justice punishment.
> >
> > Anti-dp'ers have claimed incarceration as a safe alternative to the DP.
> > It obviously is not. There are those who claim to oppose the DP on the
> > basis that it risks innocent lives, and put forth incarceration as an
> > alternative which does not. That argument is not true. Incarceration
> > not only risks innocent lives, it observably costs innocent lives.
>
> Your whole argument is flawed, IMHO. Youy point out that wrongly
> accused persons are sometimes murderedin prison. Your solution
> to this is to execute the wrongly accused persons, so to protect them
> from being murdered.
That's not the way I see it. He is simply showing that concern for
innocents is not a valid reason for objecting to the DP.
>
> That is possibly the least convincing pro-dp argument I have ever heard.
>
> What about persons wrongly accused of shoplifting? They might
> be murdered in prison too. Should we execute them as well?
> According to you, being executed is exactly the same as being murdered,
> so whats the difference.
This may be sarcasm, but it is a strawman. Again, imo, he is simply pointing
out that innocents would still be at risk without a DP.
Peter Morris
"Benny Deeni" <natsa...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:75a18ce5.02022...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > OK, I'll bite. How many times per year? Remember, you are talking
> > about wrongly accused people. How often does it happen that a person
> > murdered in prison turns out not to be guilty of the crime that put him
> > in prison?
>
> I would like to see ONE's response to this, but if you want to
> be honest *you* have to also present evidence to back up your position.
> How many innocents have been executed in the last 30 or so years?
I don't know. But there is a couple of things I do know for certain.
There have been many wrongly accused persons who were NEARLY
executed, and whose lives were saved through the action of DP
opponents. We can be certain that some of them WOULD have been
executed if DP opponents hadn't prevented it. See, for example,
Anthony Porter and Randall Dale Adams.
It is entirely possible that DP opponents have been 100% successful
in preventing wrongful executions. But If DP opponents stopped fighting
against the DP, then the execution of innocents would become much
more likely than it is at present. At the moment, DP opponents provide
a safety net which has caught the errors of the justice system on many
occasions. Remove that safety net, and innocents are put in danger.
That's what makes the risk to innocents a valid issue, even without
proof of an executed innocent. I intend to remain part of that safety net,
or at any rate will continue to give moral support to those directly
involved with saving innocents.
Peter Morris
Planet "pants on fire" Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:PMze8.230389$Gb1.36...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> I need to reply to this post in two parts, since one particular
> part so clearly demonstrates Peter Morris lies, that I need
> to insure it stands out starkly. This is that post. A response
> to the remainder is in another post.
>
> "Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
> news:a5dqd9$li2$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
> >
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> > news:rXxd8.205519$Gb1.30...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> <clipped>
>
> PV wrote --
> > > Nothing personal... but you're
> > > just a liar. It is YOU who has made the oblique reference
> > > to the fact that perhaps they DESERVED to be murdered,
> > > being 'criminals' and all. In your post "Subject: Re: The
> > > risk to innocents if we don't execute" on 2001-05-30 13:35:10
> > > PST. Where you wrote EXACTLY
> >
> Peter wrote --
> > But quoting me out of context, hiding the fact that YOU had
> > said that guilty people DESERVE to be killed. Pointing this
> > out does not indicate that I agree with you . Far from it.
> >
> PV now Responds --
> Hardly out of context. The sentence stood within two comments
> of my own, and SPEAKS for itself. Check it out, good
> people, and see WHO lies.
Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY knows that
you change peoples words then attack them for things they
never said.
And, yes, the quote was out of context.
PV makes a distinction between 'guilty' people and 'innocent'
people. He says that it is okay to kill 'guilty' people to save
'innocent' ones. He says that 'innocent' people are worth more
than guilty ones, so it is OK to kill many many 'guilty' people to
save one innocent.
He told a story of how we *could* have killed a large
number of 'guilty' people, but we didn't, so 'innocent' people
died. His story contained numerous lies. Among other lies
he told, some of the 'guilty' people he wanted to kill were in
fact innocent, while some of the 'innocent' people he wanted
to save were in fact guilty, just as guilty as the people he
wanted to kill. He changed the facts to fit his opinions.
I pointed out these lies he told, and numerous others. Pointing
out that PV falsely misrepresented 'guilty' people as 'innocent'
does not mean I share his opinion that 'guilty' ones should
be killed.
> PV quoted DIRECTLY a complete thought presented by
> Peter in a previous post --
> > > "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these
> > > murders were criminals."
> >
> Peter LIES in response --
> > PV had said that criminals DESERVE to be killed.
> >
> PV now responds and quotes DIRECTLY from the previous
> comments of Peter and myself --
>
> I have searched all of google for a post from me containing
> the simple phrase "deserve to be killed."
Google search is absoulutely crap. Large quantities
of posts simply aren't in the database
> Funny enough
> it came up with 2 results BOTH of which showed that
> I was RESPONDING to someone who used that phrase,
> having never used it myself. One was in response to a
> proven one-time troll calling himself 'Wankyfish the
> exterminator,' who was a retentionist with a sick mind that
> I provided an insult to in response. And the other poster
> I responded to was PETER. In the thread
> Re: Abolitionist's Dctionary (revised edition), where PETER
> wrote -- "I dont dispute that plenty of people *deserve* to
> be killed. Only that if we give them "what they deserve"
> then we become evil ourselves in the process."
In which I was responding to a post from PV. He was
attacking DP opponents, saying that they ought to think
that some murderers deserve to be killed.
> So it seems that PETER HAS said 'plenty of people,' and not
> even limited it to criminals in the belief that they
> 'deserve' to be killed. Talk about a liar AND a hypocrite.
> What 'I' then said in that thread as a RESPONSE was "I believe
> CERTAIN murderers deserve the DP."
DP is killing people. therefore you have said that criminals
deserve to be killed.
> Now that can hardly be seen as referring to 'plenty of people,'
> or 'criminals' as Peter claimed.
>
> I further said in that past thread "The fact is, I believe the DP
> should be reserved for only the most egregious murder(er)s,
> those quite simply almost without a doubt to be recidivist in
> nature."
>
> I can provide complete references to ANY of the comments
> that I state are DIRECT QUOTES of both Peter and myself.
Its rare that you use DIRECT quotes. Usually you quote
your interpretation of what was said.
For example, I said [quote] "In one case the innocent person
has been killed by the state's ineptitude, in the other case he has
been kileed by murder." [/quote]
PV's response was [quote] this statement which essentially claims
that all homicide is murder, which is totally false.[/quote]
He then quotes me as saying that "all homicide is murder" and
insists thats what I said. When I point out that I said no such thing
he screeches and screams and shouts that he's 'proved me to
be a liar'
The only thing that he has proved is his own lack of reading
comprehension skills.
On the RARE occasions that he uses DIRECT quotes,
they are usually taken out of context.
> Since I have provided those DIRECT quotes from our posts,
> I would now demand that Peter provide one of mine that
> shows a comment from me of 'criminals deserve to be killed.'
>
> Unless that proof can be shown then clearly, the recognition
> of Peter as a 'lying sack of PV brains ,' is hereby fully substantiated.
Note what PV has done here. By oputting quotes around
'deserve to be killed' he is turning that into a direct quote.
I never attributed *precisely* those words to him, they are
a summary of opinions he has expressed on numerous
occasions.
Here's a few DIRECT quotes, which show that PV does indeed
consider that criminals desrve to be killed.
-----------
"My arguments for the DP are that SOME murderers deserve it, "
2001-07-03 22:00:06
--------------
PV quotes someone else, expressing the opinion
"the thoughts expressed in this commentary embody my entire philosophy ...
I totally agree with every point made
I believe some people kill so viciously, with an attitude so callous
or cruel, that they deserve to die ... Our responsibility is to figure out
who should be included in that small minority -- the very worst of the
worst -- who deserve to die."
--------------
Let's examine SOME generalized examples of TYPES of murderers that
I consider in general DESERVE the DP.
2001-05-31 10:03:23 PST
----------
The only true belief I hold is that SOME
murderers deserve to die, and I will not support taking the right
to make that determination away from my society, IMHO.
2001-02-10 19:03:18 PST
-------------
. I only say that in my opinion to be
qualified for the DP - (1) a murderer must 'deserve it.
2001-07-20 20:32:48 PST
--------------
And several hundred other occasions on which he expressed
the opinion that murderers desrve to be killed.
Now, of course, he is denying that he ever said that.
Flip flop.
A Planet Visitor
>
> Planet "pants on fire" Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:PMze8.230389$Gb1.36...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > I need to reply to this post in two parts, since one particular
> > part so clearly demonstrates Peter Morris lies, that I need
> > to insure it stands out starkly. This is that post. A response
> > to the remainder is in another post.
> >
> > "Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
> > news:a5dqd9$li2$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
> > >
> > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> > > news:rXxd8.205519$Gb1.30...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > <clipped>
> >
> > PV wrote --
> > > > Nothing personal... but you're
> > > > just a liar. It is YOU who has made the oblique reference
> > > > to the fact that perhaps they DESERVED to be murdered,
> > > > being 'criminals' and all. In your post "Subject: Re: The
> > > > risk to innocents if we don't execute" on 2001-05-30 13:35:10
> > > > PST. Where you wrote EXACTLY
"It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders
were criminals."
> > Peter wrote --
> > > But quoting me out of context, hiding the fact that YOU had
> > > said that guilty people DESERVE to be killed. Pointing this
> > > out does not indicate that I agree with you . Far from it.
> > >
> > PV now Responds --
> > Hardly out of context. The sentence stood within two comments
> > of my own, and SPEAKS for itself. Check it out, good
> > people, and see WHO lies.
>
> Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY knows that
> you change peoples words then attack them for things they
> never said.
>
Actually, I only ask people to check for themselves by
providing the source of what you've said. I understand
I can never stop you from LYING about having said them,
thus I've found it necessary to provide those sources.
> And, yes, the quote was out of context.
>
Even when you say this... it's obvious you are lying. Since
you say I change peoples (sic) words. I have NOT changed
your words, not one comma. Your claim they are taken
out of context, is obviously your hope to lie your way out.
I simply ask others to look at the PRECISE references
I provide, and see for themselves WHO is lying.
> PV makes a distinction between 'guilty' people and 'innocent'
> people. He says that it is okay to kill 'guilty' people to save
> 'innocent' ones. He says that 'innocent' people are worth more
> than guilty ones, so it is OK to kill many many 'guilty' people to
> save one innocent.
>
There is a distinction between 'guilty' people and 'innocent'
people, that's rather simplistic. But it's how we view that
guilt and innocent which is important. Neither group are
'guilty' of BEING murdered. That is simply an impossibility.
Obviously, you have recognized that difference in your
posts, but have also assumed that 'being guilty of a
crime,' makes you guilty of 'being murdered,' when you said
(Subject: Re: The risk to innocents if we don't execute"
2001-05-30 13:35:10 PST) - "It has to be said four out of
seven of the victims of these murders were criminals."
Apparently you believe it is wrong to execute murderers
because we might execute 'many' to save one innocent,
yet at the same time see nothing wrong with murdering a
victim who happens to be a criminal. Check it out, folks.
Now, NO ONE, not even a murderer sitting on DR DESERVES
to be MURDERED by a fellow DR murderer. as opposed to your
belief that 'plenty of people *deserve* to be killed, (Re:
Abolitionist's Dictionary (revised edition), 2000-09-02 06:12:21
PST) where you wrote -- "I dont dispute that plenty of people
*deserve* to be killed. Only that if we give them "what they
deserve" then we become evil ourselves in the process."
I differ in that belief, believing that only a very select number
of MURDERERS deserve to be executed, and even when I
believe they do, another criteria must be met -- they must also
demonstrate that they intend to murder again should the
opportunity present itself. Lacking EITHER one of these
criteria demonstrates the lack of the necessity to execute
a proven murderer (IMHO).
> He told a story of how we *could* have killed a large
> number of 'guilty' people, but we didn't, so 'innocent' people
> died. His story contained numerous lies. Among other lies
> he told, some of the 'guilty' people he wanted to kill were in
> fact innocent, while some of the 'innocent' people he wanted
> to save were in fact guilty, just as guilty as the people he
> wanted to kill. He changed the facts to fit his opinions.
>
Herr Goebbels speaks again in the form of Peter's lies.
Of course, we 'could' have killed a large number of guilty
people, but we didn't, so 'innocent' people were MURDERED.
That's fact. Not a lie. Nor did I deny that some of those
sentenced to the DP had their sentences TOTALLY overturned
as 'legally' innocent. But how may someone be 'guilty' of
BEING MURDERED? Obviously it is Peter who believes they
DESERVED to be murdered, and not me, since I am appalled
by murder... the murder of ANYONE. While Peter seems to
think it's okay if the victim is a 'criminal,' since he claimed
'it has to be said...'
> I pointed out these lies he told, and numerous others. Pointing
> out that PV falsely misrepresented 'guilty' people as 'innocent'
> does not mean I share his opinion that 'guilty' ones should
> be killed.
>
But that's EXACTLY what you said! How can you look this
group in the eye and lie, when I provide DIRECT evidence
of what you've said? Exactly how can I misrepresent 'guilty'
people as 'innocent' when I say they may be 'guilty' of a
crime, but are certainly 'innocent' of 'deserving murder'?
NO ONE deserves MURDER. Some murderers deserve
the DP. Those that both deserve the DP and are almost
certainly recidivist should be executed. NO ONE should
be MURDERED. Not even a murderer on DR.
> > PV quoted DIRECTLY a complete thought presented by
> > Peter in a previous post --
> > > > "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these
> > > > murders were criminals."
> > >
> > Peter LIES in response --
> > > PV had said that criminals DESERVE to be killed.
> > >
> > PV now responds and quotes DIRECTLY from the previous
> > comments of Peter and myself --
> >
> > I have searched all of google for a post from me containing
> > the simple phrase "deserve to be killed."
>
> Google search is absoulutely crap. Large quantities
> of posts simply aren't in the database
>
ROTFLMAO. In other words you make a claim which cannot
be proven, and then claim I lie when I ask you to prove it.
You're hilarious, and a liar to boot. Funny enough when I
QUOTE you EXACTLY I can ALWAYS find that quote
EXACTLY as you posted it in google. What's the matter
with you? Perhaps you can provide a direct quote from me
where you BELIIEVE I said such. Of course I have said
'some murderers deserve to be executed,' or words to
that effect. But that forms the bedrock of my argument,
which is hardly strange that I would say something like
that. But I have NEVER said that 'criminals' deserve to
be killed, or executed, without the clear meaning that I
am referring to PROVEN murderers who meet my specific
criteria for execution.
> > Funny enough
> > it came up with 2 results BOTH of which showed that
> > I was RESPONDING to someone who used that phrase,
> > having never used it myself. One was in response to a
> > proven one-time troll calling himself 'Wankyfish the
> > exterminator,' who was a retentionist with a sick mind that
> > I provided an insult to in response. And the other poster
> > I responded to was PETER. In the thread
> > Re: Abolitionist's Dictionary (revised edition), where PETER
> > wrote -- "I dont dispute that plenty of people *deserve* to
> > be killed. Only that if we give them "what they deserve"
> > then we become evil ourselves in the process."
>
> In which I was responding to a post from PV. He was
> attacking DP opponents, saying that they ought to think
> that some murderers deserve to be killed.
>
Hardly attacking, since it forms the core of my belief.
You see Peter I don't DENY it. SOME MURDERERS
DESERVE EXECUTION, YET THAT DOES NOT MEAN
THEY MEET THE FULL CRITERIA I HOLD FOR SOCIETY
TO EXECUTE THEM. Please bookmark this and refer
to it whenever you become confused. But I do not refer
to murderers meeting my criteria as 'plenty of people,'
as you have done.
> > So it seems that PETER HAS said 'plenty of people,' and not
> > even limited it to criminals in the belief that they
> > 'deserve' to be killed. Talk about a liar AND a hypocrite.
> >
> > What 'I' then said in that thread as a RESPONSE was "I believe
> > CERTAIN murderers deserve the DP."
>
> DP is killing people. therefore you have said that criminals
> deserve to be killed.
>
No... murderers are a much SMALLER subset than 'criminals.'
And 'plenty of people,' is a much LARGER subset than 'criminals.'
You have obviously claimed you believe a MUCH larger subset
of humanity 'deserve to be killed,' then I do. I reserve who I believe
should be executed (killed - it doesn't bother me to say it - because
that's what it is) to a very small population of proven murderers.
You seem to believe it is 'plenty of people.'
> > Now that can hardly be seen as referring to 'plenty of people,'
> > or 'criminals' as Peter claimed.
> >
> > I further said in that past thread "The fact is, I believe the DP
> > should be reserved for only the most egregious murder(er)s,
> > those quite simply almost without a doubt to be recidivist in
> > nature."
> >
> > I can provide complete references to ANY of the comments
> > that I state are DIRECT QUOTES of both Peter and myself.
>
> Its rare that you use DIRECT quotes. Usually you quote
> your interpretation of what was said.
>
That's simply YOU, Peter. I've learned with you that unless
I use direct quotes and provide references you simply lie.
And even when I do, you simply lies by saying I've taken
you 'out of context.' Yet you find nothing wrong with making
up absurd lies claiming what I've said, without providing the
slightest proof of a source.
> For example, I said [quote] "In one case the innocent person
> has been killed by the state's ineptitude, in the other case he has
> been kileed by murder." [/quote]
>
Of course, and that places a different perspective on it,
but does not mean the victim is NOT DEAD, through the
fault of society. It just means it didn't come at the hand
entrusted by society to effect the killing. But society has
to assume that it provided placing the innocent into an
environment other than open society, which provided the
opportunity for him to be murdered. You may weep all
you wish about it being 'safer' in prison than 'out' of prison,
but you must realize what a STUPID argument that is.
In the first case, you are no longer the master controlling
your own environmental space, responsible for your
own safety. You have become a ward of the state,
and THEY are responsible for your safety, and if you
are murdered in prison, THEY have failed. In the second
case, you are provided the freedom to assess your
own safety, even if it is less than what you would have
in prison. You have the freedom of action provided by
your own initiative rather than the initiative of society
which is what fails if you are an innocent murdered in prison.
> PV's response was [quote] this statement which essentially claims
> that all homicide is murder, which is totally false.[/quote]
>
I hope you are not trying to claim that by my words I am
saying that homicide is murder. Because I AM saying that
the statement 'homicide is murder,' is an inaccurate
statement, and cannot be made in a factual sense. Murder
is homicide, but homicide is not murder, unless it IS murder.
> He then quotes me as saying that "all homicide is murder" and
> insists thats what I said. When I point out that I said no such thing
> he screeches and screams and shouts that he's 'proved me to
> be a liar'
>
But you ARE a liar, Peter. You've completely distorted that
whole commentary.
> The only thing that he has proved is his own lack of reading
> comprehension skills.
>
Yeah..yeah.
> On the RARE occasions that he uses DIRECT quotes,
> they are usually taken out of context.
My ass. That is for the READER to decide, since I provide
those direct quotes, and I don't claim that a "Google search
is absoulutely crap. Large quantities of posts simply aren't
in the database" as you've excused your lies with such a
ridiculous claim, above.
Actually I ALWAYS try to use your direct quotes, and specific
references to FIND those quotes, having so often caught you in
lies that you later deny.
> > Since I have provided those DIRECT quotes from our posts,
> > I would now demand that Peter provide one of mine that
> > shows a comment from me of 'criminals deserve to be killed.'
> >
Peter can't do it, of course.
> > Unless that proof can be shown then clearly, the recognition
> > of Peter as a 'lying sack of shit,' is hereby fully substantiated.
Peter is a liar, of course.
> Note what PV has done here. By oputting quotes around
> 'deserve to be killed' he is turning that into a direct quote.
> I never attributed *precisely* those words to him, they are
> a summary of opinions he has expressed on numerous
> occasions.
>
Never... NEVER... have I claimed that 'criminals deserve to
be killed.' In fact, I can provide MANY times that YOU'VE
said exactly that thought. I am reminded of your argument
that a 'drug dealer,' deserved to be murdered, because he was
a drug dealer. And that no one would be sorry he was murdered.
> Here's a few DIRECT quotes, which show that PV does indeed
> consider that criminals desrve to be killed.
>
>
> -----------
> "My arguments for the DP are that SOME murderers deserve it, "
> 2001-07-03 22:00:06
>
TRUE. But that only demonstrates how you lie. That's actually
a beautiful quote, and I thank you for putting it in, as presumably
supporting YOUR argument. You have obviously concluded that
all 'criminals' are 'murderers,' while I have ALWAYS differentiate
between the two.
> --------------
>
> PV quotes someone else, expressing the opinion
> "the thoughts expressed in this commentary embody my entire philosophy ...
> I totally agree with every point made
>
> I believe some people kill so viciously, with an attitude so callous
> or cruel, that they deserve to die ... Our responsibility is to figure out
> who should be included in that small minority -- the very worst of the
> worst -- who deserve to die."
>
Sounds good to me. It beats thinking that 'plenty of people
deserve to be killed' as you've said in the reference I've provided
above.
> --------------
>
> Let's examine SOME generalized examples of TYPES of murderers that
> I consider in general DESERVE the DP.
> 2001-05-31 10:03:23 PST
>
What the hell does that mean??? Lord, but you're desperate
since I believe I went on to say - serial killers, pedophiles, murder
for hire, and those who execution style murder 5 teenagers in
a robbery to eliminate witnesses. And funny enough, I believe
I went on to EXCLUDE many murderers, while you claim
'plenty of people deserve to be killed.'
> ----------
>
> The only true belief I hold is that SOME
> murderers deserve to die, and I will not support taking the right
> to make that determination away from my society, IMHO.
> 2001-02-10 19:03:18 PST
>
Quite true. Thank you for repeating my argument.
> -------------
>
> . I only say that in my opinion to be
> qualified for the DP - (1) a murderer must 'deserve it.
> 2001-07-20 20:32:48 PST
>
And then you claim you DON'T take out of context? What
a joke. The (1), gives you away, since it presumes there
is a (2), which there is. And that (2) is ANOTHER specific
requirement which must be met in ADDITION to (1), and
that (2) is a high probability of recidivism. Without BOTH,
a murderer should not be executed (even if deserved of
it in my mind). IMHO.
> --------------
>
> And several hundred other occasions on which he expressed
> the opinion that murderers desrve to be killed.
>
SOME murderers, of course. I would not be a retentionist
should I not believe that.
> Now, of course, he is denying that he ever said that.
>
> Flip flop.
In a world filled with Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde abolitionists,
there is no question which persona you represent, Mr. Hyde.
PV
Benny Deeni
>
> "Benny Deeni" <natsa...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:75a18ce5.02022...@posting.google.com...
>
> > >
> > > OK, I'll bite. How many times per year? Remember, you are talking
> > > about wrongly accused people. How often does it happen that a person
> > > murdered in prison turns out not to be guilty of the crime that put
him
> > > in prison?
> >
> > I would like to see ONE's response to this, but if you want to
> > be honest *you* have to also present evidence to back up your position.
> > How many innocents have been executed in the last 30 or so years?
>
> I don't know.
But how can you strongly argue how dangerous it is for an innocent to be
executed and at the same time say you don't have any evidence that it has
actually happened?
Then you demand ONE to provide evidence. That's called a double standard.
Would you be satisified if ONE gave you evidence that an innocent in prison
was
badly beat up (ie, "NEARLY" murdered.)?
> But there is a couple of things I do know for certain.
> There have been many wrongly accused persons who were NEARLY
> executed, and whose lives were saved through the action of DP
> opponents. We can be certain that some of them WOULD have been
> executed if DP opponents hadn't prevented it. See, for example,
> Anthony Porter and Randall Dale Adams.
Again, these guys were not executed.
>
> It is entirely possible that DP opponents have been 100% successful
> in preventing wrongful executions.
Yeah, those who support the DP don't give a damn if an innocent person
is executed. Give me break.
> But If DP opponents stopped fighting
> against the DP, then the execution of innocents would become much
> more likely than it is at present.
I don't see the logic in that, and quite frankly, it is a little offensive,
since
it implies that those who support the DP aren't all that concerned if an
innocent person is executed.
> At the moment, DP opponents provide
> a safety net which has caught the errors of the justice system on many
> occasions. Remove that safety net, and innocents are put in danger.
>
Again, I don't see any reason why one has to be a DP opponent to
advocate a "safety net."
> That's what makes the risk to innocents a valid issue, even without
> proof of an executed innocent. I intend to remain part of that safety net,
> or at any rate will continue to give moral support to those directly
> involved with saving innocents.
But what about the 100%, undeniably innocent people who are murdered
by convicted murderers who were NOT executed for a previous murder?
I'll be happy to provide some cases where that has happened. Objecting
to the DP based on concern for innocent life if not supported by the facts.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
"Benny Deeni" <natsa...@excite.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > But If DP opponents stopped fighting
> > against the DP, then the execution of innocents would become much
> > more likely than it is at present.
>
> I don't see the logic in that, and quite frankly, it is a little
> offensive,
> since
> it implies that those who support the DP aren't all that concerned if an
> innocent person is executed.
To be fair, DP advocates don't spend any time examining cases after
conviction and appeals have been and gone, do they?
Of course retentionists are concerned that innocents should not be
executed but many of them are perfectly happy that justice has been done
once due process has been observed. This is, evidently, not the case
all the time.
> > At the moment, DP opponents provide
> > a safety net which has caught the errors of the justice system on many
> > occasions. Remove that safety net, and innocents are put in danger.
> Again, I don't see any reason why one has to be a DP opponent to
> advocate a "safety net."
Quite true.
> > That's what makes the risk to innocents a valid issue, even without
> > proof of an executed innocent. I intend to remain part of that safety
> > net,
> > or at any rate will continue to give moral support to those directly
> > involved with saving innocents.
>
> But what about the 100%, undeniably innocent people who are murdered
> by convicted murderers who were NOT executed for a previous murder?
Most entries in lists of such people consist of those killed by
murderers who were not convicted of a murder that would have carried the
DP. Are you arguing for a widening of the criteria for capital crimes?
> I'll be happy to provide some cases where that has happened. Objecting
> to the DP based on concern for innocent life if not supported by the
> facts.
Not at present. With significant overhauls of large parts of the prison
system, I think that this equation would change significantly.
Peter Morris
> Herr Goebbels speaks again in the form of Peter's lies.
Ah, yes. PV has been proved wrong yet again, so he does what he
always does, hurls abuse and insults, screams that I'm lying twists my
words around and screams that the altered version sounds stupid
and totaslly fails to come up with a single sensible comment.
How pathetic. Even by the standards of retentionists, how
simply pathetic.
No further response to his post is required.
Benny Deeni
> In article <jRgf8.79912$2v1.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>,
> "Benny Deeni" <natsa...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > But If DP opponents stopped fighting
> > > against the DP, then the execution of innocents would become much
> > > more likely than it is at present.
> >
> > I don't see the logic in that, and quite frankly, it is a little
> > offensive,
> > since
> > it implies that those who support the DP aren't all that concerned if an
> > innocent person is executed.
>
> To be fair, DP advocates don't spend any time examining cases after
> conviction and appeals have been and gone, do they?
>
Not sure what your point is. Are we supposed to examine cases for
eternity, even when there is no credible evidence of innocence?
Anyway, do LWOP advocates, after the prisoner dies, "spend any time
examining cases after conviction and appeals have been and gone?"
Considering, by many DP opponents' own reasoning, that more innocents are/will
be sentenced to life imprisonment than the DP, I think your question is
more appropriate for those who support LWOP.
> Of course retentionists are concerned that innocents should not be
> executed but many of them are perfectly happy that justice has been done
> once due process has been observed. This is, evidently, not the case
> all the time.
Same reasoning could be applied to those who support LWOP, as I
said above. And again, wanting to examine and re-examine cases
for eternity is not just, imo, whether it is for DP or LWOP cases.
>
> > > At the moment, DP opponents provide
> > > a safety net which has caught the errors of the justice system on many
> > > occasions. Remove that safety net, and innocents are put in danger.
>
> > Again, I don't see any reason why one has to be a DP opponent to
> > advocate a "safety net."
>
> Quite true.
>
> > > That's what makes the risk to innocents a valid issue, even without
> > > proof of an executed innocent. I intend to remain part of that safety
> > > net,
> > > or at any rate will continue to give moral support to those directly
> > > involved with saving innocents.
> >
> > But what about the 100%, undeniably innocent people who are murdered
> > by convicted murderers who were NOT executed for a previous murder?
>
> Most entries in lists of such people consist of those killed by
> murderers who were not convicted of a murder that would have carried the
> DP.
Again, I find your comments to be biased and based on a double standard.
Here you pretty much dismiss out of hand the actual cases of those
serving LWOP or long life sentences murdering again, by saying "most
entries in lists...." On the other hand, you seem to strongly object
to the DP because there is a possibility an innocent could be executed,
and you can't even provide ONE credible example of it actually happening.
Kenneth McDuff by himself murdered several innocent people. There
are other examples, though the link to one of the websites to which
I refer has gone bad. It is Law Professor Paul Cassell's testimony
to Congress regarding the DP. If you are interested, I guess you can send
him an e-mail.
http://www.law.utah.edu/faculty/bios/cassellp.html
And I'm sure you've seen other cases that are cited in this newsgroup.
> Are you arguing for a widening of the criteria for capital crimes?
Strawman. I am simply countering the unsupported position that
the DP should be abolished based on concern for innocents.
If you are concerned so much about innocents, *you* should be "arguing
for a widening of the criteria for capital crimes." But you've
already stated that you would still support abolition of the DP even
if it were proven that more innocents will die without it than with it.
So you've painted yourself into a corner.
>
> > I'll be happy to provide some cases where that has happened. Objecting
> > to the DP based on concern for innocent life if not supported by the
> > facts.
>
> Not at present. With significant overhauls of large parts of the prison
> system, I think that this equation would change significantly.
>
> Mr Q. Z. D.
Again, with all due respect, you are just talking without having
anything to back up what you are saying.
A Planet Visitor
ROTFLMAO... Peter comes out with a denial, after having
been directly quoted. Plus, having accused me of saying
what I have obviously never said, and making the excuse
that google does not have all messages from this group in
its database. Literally... ROTFLMAO. Peter -- the 'dullard'
of AADP -- comes out with a nuance-impaired argument
using hard core repetitive, washed-out lies, that can only
be described as 'typical of his posts.'
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrna7so53.ald.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> Le Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:29:42 -0000, Peter Morris <no_sp...@se.com> a Ć©crit
:
>
> >> Herr Goebbels speaks again in the form of Peter's lies.
>
> > Ah, yes. PV has been proved wrong yet again, so he does what he
> > always does, hurls abuse and insults, screams that I'm lying twists my
> > words around and screams that the altered version sounds stupid
> > and totaslly fails to come up with a single sensible comment.
>
>
> > How pathetic. Even by the standards of retentionists, how
> > simply pathetic.
>
>
> > No further response to his post is required.
>
>
Just one more... IDIOT!!
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> desmond @ noos.fr |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/
> ClƩ Publique : http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
>
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
natsa...@excite.com (Benny Deeni) wrote:
It is, indeed. After all appeals have been exhausted, a prisoner
serving LWOP is, undoubtedly, able to be exonerated and freed until the
day they die. Once someone is executed, they are dead. End of story.
> > Of course retentionists are concerned that innocents should not be
> > executed but many of them are perfectly happy that justice has been
> > done
> > once due process has been observed. This is, evidently, not the case
> > all the time.
>
> Same reasoning could be applied to those who support LWOP, as I
> said above. And again, wanting to examine and re-examine cases
> for eternity is not just, imo, whether it is for DP or LWOP cases.
Being _able_ to right a wrong by re-examining cases for eternity is
important to me. Doesn't mean that all cases should be exhaustively
examined when there is no reason to.
I have. I feel that you're making an "apples versus oranges"
comparison, though. I can only advocate a system that doesn't exist in
the USA - I can't provide examples from it because it hasn't been
implemented and doesn't exist.
> > Are you arguing for a widening of the criteria for capital crimes?
> Strawman.
Don't jump to conclusions. It was an honest question intended to elicit
an honest answer.
> I am simply countering the unsupported position that
> the DP should be abolished based on concern for innocents.
> If you are concerned so much about innocents, *you* should be "arguing
> for a widening of the criteria for capital crimes."
Ummm...why?
[snip unilateral declaration of victory]
> > > I'll be happy to provide some cases where that has happened.
> > > Objecting
> > > to the DP based on concern for innocent life if not supported by the
> > > facts.
> >
> > Not at present. With significant overhauls of large parts of the
> > prison
> > system, I think that this equation would change significantly.
> Again, with all due respect, you are just talking without having
> anything to back up what you are saying.
I _can't_ back it up until it is tried. It certainly works in Australia
and, I suspect, is successful in the UK. Whether or not it would be
applicable in the USA remains to be seen because it simply hasn't been
attempted.
Peter Morris
Oh, yeah, PV? lets look at the arguments you lost in this thread
alone, shall we.
Peter : "In one case the innocent person has been killed by
the state's ineptitude, in the other case he has been kileed by murder."
PV : " And they wonder why I sometimes refer to some abolitionists
as possessing absolute NO MORALS, in arguing an indefensible
position. Murder is ALWAYS unlawful. Penalties for crimes
(any penalities, any crimes) are ALWAYS lawful. Whether they
are moral or not, is quite a different consideration. You have
made a fool of yourself before, with this statement which
essentially claims that all homicide is murder, which is totally
false. Why do you insist on further proving you're a fool? "
Thus proving your own lack of reading comprehension skills.
You THINK I said :
- murder is lawful
- penalties for crimes are unlawful
- moral is the same as lawful
- all homicide is murder.
Then you attack what you THINK i said, being utterly unable
to answer, or even comprehend, what I REALLY said.
That was strike one.
Knowing you had lost that argument, you desperately try to
cover your embarrsment by resurecting an old debate that y
ou have lost a number of times before.
You sad that murderers 'deserve' to die. You said that its okay
to kill murderers to save innocent people. Then you provided
what you claimed was an example of such. But you lied. You
twisted the facts to fit your own twisted morals. You hid the fact
that the victims were murderers, because you thought that it would
sound more convincing that way. Because, in fact, YOU think
that murderers deserve to be murdered. You have tried to make
it appear that I share the same twisted standards that YOU do.
Of course, proving that you are a liar does not mean that I agree
with you.
That was strike two.
Then of course, you get embarrassed at that, so you start denying
that YOU ever said that murderers deserve to die. You challenge
me to provide direct quotes of you saying so. I provide
you with a number of direct quotes where you directly said
thwey deserve it, and yet you still keep on denying your own words.
That was strike three.
In response to this, you compare me to Goebbels .
All you have is abuse and insults. Are we supposed to be
impressed with this, you bitter little man?
Benny Deeni
Sigh. Please re-read what I wrote. Please note where I said, "After
the prisoner dies." I was referring to prisoners serving LWOP or
life setnences. Once they pass away, "they are dead. End of story."
By your own reasoning (ie, it should cost more to administer the DP
than
LWOP to avoid executing innocents), there must be more innocents
sentenced
to life imprisonment. Surely some of the die in prison.
And, as I've been saying all along, once a prison guard, fellow inmate
or private citizen is murdered by a murderer serving a life sentence,
these innocent peopele "are dead. End of story."
>
> > > Of course retentionists are concerned that innocents should not be
> > > executed but many of them are perfectly happy that justice has been
> > > done
> > > once due process has been observed. This is, evidently, not the case
> > > all the time.
> >
> > Same reasoning could be applied to those who support LWOP, as I
> > said above. And again, wanting to examine and re-examine cases
> > for eternity is not just, imo, whether it is for DP or LWOP cases.
>
> Being _able_ to right a wrong by re-examining cases for eternity is
> important to me.
And again, this can apply to prisoners who die in prison while serving
life sentences. Anyway, how can you expect to get to the truth 30 or
40 years AFTER a crime occurred? Witenesses die, memories fade,
evidence
degrades or is discarded, etc. That is not justice. And for the last
time,
you can apply this reasoning to prisoners who die in prison while
serving
life sentences as well, so your point is moot.
Why is it "apples vs. oranges?" Like I said many times, while the
chance of either happening is very remote, my child is much more
likely to be murdererd (perhaps tortured/raped) by a brutal murderer
serving LWOP or a life sentence than being plucked off the street
by police, charged with capital murder, then actually convicted, then
fail all appeals, and then fail to be granted clemency. That's
basically
what it boils down to. That you would rather champion the rights
of the mythical executed innocent (who more likely than not would
be a career criminal) is your perogative. I strongly disagree
with that position.
> I can only advocate a system that doesn't exist in
> the USA - I can't provide examples from it because it hasn't been
> implemented and doesn't exist.
>
What do you mean "advocate a system?" You want the DP abolished,
and again you are using "selective logic" to single out the DP when
in reality your reasoning can apply to LWOP as well.
> > > Are you arguing for a widening of the criteria for capital crimes?
>
> > Strawman.
>
> Don't jump to conclusions. It was an honest question intended to elicit
> an honest answer.
>
> > I am simply countering the unsupported position that
> > the DP should be abolished based on concern for innocents.
> > If you are concerned so much about innocents, *you* should be "arguing
> > for a widening of the criteria for capital crimes."
>
> Ummm...why?
>
This is very frustrating. Obviously, we are getting nowhere. I've
already explained at least half a dozen times why. Innocents are more
at risk without the DP than with the DP. How you can deny that is
beyond me, since you
can't even provide ONE friggin' credible example of an innocent person
being executed in the last 30 or so years.
> [snip unilateral declaration of victory]
I simply said you painted yourself into a corner.
Which is exactly what you are doing.
>
> > > > I'll be happy to provide some cases where that has happened.
> > > > Objecting
> > > > to the DP based on concern for innocent life if not supported by the
> > > > facts.
> > >
> > > Not at present. With significant overhauls of large parts of the
> > > prison
> > > system, I think that this equation would change significantly.
>
> > Again, with all due respect, you are just talking without having
> > anything to back up what you are saying.
>
> I _can't_ back it up until it is tried.
Why try anything until you can show things need to be changed.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. You haven't shown that anything
is broken.
> It certainly works in Australia
> and, I suspect, is successful in the UK.
The system here in the US "works" also.
Peter Morris
>
> "Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
> news:a5jbpv$fm8$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
> >
> > "Benny Deeni" <natsa...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > news:75a18ce5.02022...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > >
> > > > OK, I'll bite. How many times per year? Remember, you are talking
> > > > about wrongly accused people. How often does it happen that a
person
> > > > murdered in prison turns out not to be guilty of the crime that put
> him
> > > > in prison?
> > >
> > > I would like to see ONE's response to this, but if you want to
> > > be honest *you* have to also present evidence to back up your
position.
> > > How many innocents have been executed in the last 30 or so years?
> >
> > I don't know.
>
> But how can you strongly argue how dangerous it is for an innocent to be
> executed and at the same time say you don't have any evidence that it has
> actually happened?
> Then you demand ONE to provide evidence. That's called a double standard.
> Would you be satisified if ONE gave you evidence that an innocent in
prison
> was
> badly beat up (ie, "NEARLY" murdered.)?
Lets say, that I accept the point. Okay, how many times has it actually
happened that a wrongly convicted person was NEARLY killed in
prison? If you can cite any specific examples, you may well have a point.
>
> > But there is a couple of things I do know for certain.
> > There have been many wrongly accused persons who were NEARLY
> > executed, and whose lives were saved through the action of DP
> > opponents. We can be certain that some of them WOULD have been
> > executed if DP opponents hadn't prevented it. See, for example,
> > Anthony Porter and Randall Dale Adams.
>
> Again, these guys were not executed.
So your're saying what exactly?
I hate to put words in your mouth - I usually leave that to PV - but it
seems to me you're implying there was never anything to worry about
in the first place. Nobody innocent was actually executed, so the
students that saved Porter might just as well have stayed at home.
> > It is entirely possible that DP opponents have been 100% successful
> > in preventing wrongful executions.
>
> Yeah, those who support the DP don't give a damn if an innocent person
> is executed. Give me break.
>
> > But If DP opponents stopped fighting
> > against the DP, then the execution of innocents would become much
> > more likely than it is at present.
>
> I don't see the logic in that, and quite frankly, it is a little
offensive,
> since
> it implies that those who support the DP aren't all that concerned if an
> innocent person is executed.
I find that most of them refuse to believe that any problem exists.
> > At the moment, DP opponents provide
> > a safety net which has caught the errors of the justice system on many
> > occasions. Remove that safety net, and innocents are put in danger.
> >
>
> Again, I don't see any reason why one has to be a DP opponent to
> advocate a "safety net."
There are two ways in which anti-DP activities create a safety net:
direct and indirect.
First of all, there is INDIRECT. Antis block the DP in any way they can,
making it as hard as possible to kill anyone. So it takes years to
kill anyone. And sometimes evidence turns up years after their conviction,
which proves their innocence. The fact that they are still alive all
those years later allows them to be freed.
By definition, DP suppoerters cannot be part of this safety net. The simple
fact is that they campaign to speed up executions, and reduce the
delays. If they were unopposed, all the protection that exists now
would be stripped away , bit by bit, until nothing remained. If we allowed
you to kill them quickly, they would be dead when the proof of their
innocence
turns up years later.
Secondly, there is DIRECT. This is when groups spend time investigating
cases looking for evidence of innocence. This is what happened in the case
of Anthony Porter, saved due to the investigations of a bunch of students.
In theory, DP supporters CAN be part of this safety net, but
generally speaking they aren't.
> > That's what makes the risk to innocents a valid issue, even without
> > proof of an executed innocent. I intend to remain part of that safety
net,
> > or at any rate will continue to give moral support to those directly
> > involved with saving innocents.
>
> But what about the 100%, undeniably innocent people who are murdered
> by convicted murderers who were NOT executed for a previous murder?
> I'll be happy to provide some cases where that has happened. Objecting
> to the DP based on concern for innocent life if not supported by the
facts.
Actually, yes it is. The facts show that many innocent lives have been
saved through the activities of DP opponents, who oppose the DP
because of concern for innocent life. Without that concern, they wouldn't
be anti-dp, they wouldn't be involved with protecting innocent people,
hence innocent people would be in danger.
A Planet Visitor
ineptitude. But only ONE was murdered. You seem to wish
to claim that the state's ineptitude in executing an innocent is
somehow worse than the state's ineptitude in preventing murder
in an environment which supposedly assures non-violence. My
point has always been that they are BOTH dead, and the State has
PERMITTED those deaths to happen. One accidentally, one
through negligence in maintaining security in an environment
which abolitionists argue IS secure, and guarantee it WILL prevent
the death of an innocent. No such guarantee can be given is
the point of the argument.
>
> PV : " And they wonder why I sometimes refer to some abolitionists
> as possessing absolute NO MORALS, in arguing an indefensible
> position. Murder is ALWAYS unlawful. Penalties for crimes
> (any penalities, any crimes) are ALWAYS lawful. Whether they
> are moral or not, is quite a different consideration. You have
> made a fool of yourself before, with this statement which
> essentially claims that all homicide is murder, which is totally
> false. Why do you insist on further proving you're a fool? "
>
>
> Thus proving your own lack of reading comprehension skills.
> You THINK I said :
> - murder is lawful
But you have.
> - penalties for crimes are unlawful
But you have.
> - moral is the same as lawful
Oh, boy... but you have.
> - all homicide is murder.
You tried, but after showing you self-defense, you rather
back-tracked.
>
> Then you attack what you THINK i said, being utterly unable
> to answer, or even comprehend, what I REALLY said.
>
> That was strike one.
No matter how often Peter repeats his original assumption,
it will never assume the proportion of the TRUTH. It will ALWAYS
remain a lie. Peter is just a liar. And a squirming one at that.
Without lies he's an empty shell of unreason. And he knows it.
>
> Knowing you had lost that argument, you desperately try to
> cover your embarrsment by resurecting an old debate that y
> ou have lost a number of times before.
>
> You sad that murderers 'deserve' to die. You said that its okay
> to kill murderers to save innocent people. Then you provided
> what you claimed was an example of such. But you lied. You
> twisted the facts to fit your own twisted morals. You hid the fact
> that the victims were murderers, because you thought that it would
> sound more convincing that way. Because, in fact, YOU think
> that murderers deserve to be murdered. You have tried to make
> it appear that I share the same twisted standards that YOU do.
>
> Of course, proving that you are a liar does not mean that I agree
> with you.
>
You don't agree with me, Peter. I do not claim that 'plenty
of people *deserve* to be killed.' You DO.
> That was strike two.
Simply more lies. Since the victims WERE NOT MURDERERS.
Which makes Peter a liar right from the beginning. They were
prisoners, and he has claimed that '"It has to be said four out
of seven of the victims of these murders were criminals." And
since they were, he must also believe that they DESERVE to be
murdered when he wrote -- "I dont dispute that plenty of people
*deserve* to be killed." I've never said anything remotely
that inhumane toward my fellow man. 'Plenty of people
deserve to be killed' -- What a DISGUSTING thought!
>
> Then of course, you get embarrassed at that, so you start denying
> that YOU ever said that murderers deserve to die. You challenge
> me to provide direct quotes of you saying so. I provide
> you with a number of direct quotes where you directly said
> thwey deserve it, and yet you still keep on denying your own words.
I've never denied saying that 'SOME murderers' deserve to
be executed. That of course cannot be extended to my
having said 'criminals' deserve to be killed. And even
'deserving' execution is of course only one step in the
necessity TO execute them. Peter, however, believes 'plenty
of people' deserve to be executed. Quite a bit more than
'some murderers,' but 'plenty of people.' Peter has
accused me with his words of "PV had said that criminals
DESERVE to be killed." This is the typical distortion of
a liar, who presumes because I feel SOME murderers
deserve to be executed it can be expanded to all 'criminals'
deserve to be killed. Clearly 'ideas' are a subset of 'thoughts'
and if I said SOME 'ideas' are wrong, there is absolutely
NO implication that 'thoughts' are wrong. Obviously SOME
murderers is NOT the same as 'all criminals.'
And a further lie came from Peter, when he stated that
"As you well know, these four murder victims were people
that YOU, (not I), wanted dead anyway." Since I do
not WANT anyone dead. And they were not murderers,
but criminals... who Peter DID WANT dead... when HE
said ""It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of
these murders were criminals." All while he lied, yet
again, when he now said "Four of the people murdered
were in fact criminals. People that PV said DESERVED
to be killed." And everyone can see that Peter has not
just taken my words out of context, but lied in the claim
that I have said what he claims. Thus, he remains the
slimy liar that he's always been. I said SOME MURDERERS
deserve to be executed. Peter, however; has not only agreed
with that, but has EXPANDED it, to include 'plenty of people.'
>
> That was strike three.
>
> In response to this, you compare me to Goebbels .
> All you have is abuse and insults. Are we supposed to be
> impressed with this, you bitter little man?
Goebbels...Goebbels....Goebbles... suck it up, you lying
sack of shit!!! ROTFLMAO.
PV
Benny Deeni
Oh, I see, I have to provide evidence but you don't. You've already
admitted
that you have no evidence of any innocent being executed. I don't have any
specific examples to cite regarding prisoners getting badly beaten up. But
have YOU researched it? You are supposedly so concerened about innocents
being killed, aren't you? Where are the results of your objective study on
which
you base your opinion that innocents are more at risk with the DP than
without it?
>
> >
> > > But there is a couple of things I do know for certain.
> > > There have been many wrongly accused persons who were NEARLY
> > > executed, and whose lives were saved through the action of DP
> > > opponents. We can be certain that some of them WOULD have been
> > > executed if DP opponents hadn't prevented it. See, for example,
> > > Anthony Porter and Randall Dale Adams.
> >
> > Again, these guys were not executed.
>
> So your're saying what exactly?
That they were not executed. Pretty simple.
>
> I hate to put words in your mouth - I usually leave that to PV - but it
> seems to me you're implying there was never anything to worry about
> in the first place. Nobody innocent was actually executed, so the
> students that saved Porter might just as well have stayed at home.
>
That's ridiculous and illogical. I support the DP. But, despite your
silly implication that DP supporters don't care if an innocent person is
executed,
I would be the first one going to the authorities if I had
evidence of that an innocent person was sentenced to death. Or sentenced
to LWOP. Or sentenced to LWP.
>
> > > It is entirely possible that DP opponents have been 100% successful
> > > in preventing wrongful executions.
> >
> > Yeah, those who support the DP don't give a damn if an innocent person
> > is executed. Give me break.
> >
> > > But If DP opponents stopped fighting
> > > against the DP, then the execution of innocents would become much
> > > more likely than it is at present.
> >
> > I don't see the logic in that, and quite frankly, it is a little
> offensive,
> > since
> > it implies that those who support the DP aren't all that concerned if an
> > innocent person is executed.
>
> I find that most of them refuse to believe that any problem exists.
But you haven't shown that there is a "problem"!!! The system is set up
to catch mistakes. No one claims the judicial system is perfect (well,
besides
DP opponents who routinely assume LWOP is perfect.) Would you be
happy if no death sentence was ever overturned? Would that make you feel
better about the death penalty?
>
> > > At the moment, DP opponents provide
> > > a safety net which has caught the errors of the justice system on many
> > > occasions. Remove that safety net, and innocents are put in danger.
> > >
> >
> > Again, I don't see any reason why one has to be a DP opponent to
> > advocate a "safety net."
>
> There are two ways in which anti-DP activities create a safety net:
> direct and indirect.
>
> First of all, there is INDIRECT. Antis block the DP in any way they can,
> making it as hard as possible to kill anyone. So it takes years to
> kill anyone. And sometimes evidence turns up years after their
conviction,
> which proves their innocence. The fact that they are still alive all
> those years later allows them to be freed.
Most DP supporters advocate a period of time for appeals as well.
And what you are (intentionally) missing is that if you are going to
take credit for this, you also have to take credit for all the innocent
people who are murdered by vicious murderers who are NOT
executed. But you won't. You'll try to rationalize that you are not
responsible for guys like Kenneth McDuff, or Thomas Silverstein, or
Clay Fountain, etc.
http://google.com/search?q=cache:2R3ZRBlXB3cC:www.law.utah.edu/Faculty/bios/
cassell/TESthousehearing.htm+%22Paul+Cassell%22+Death+Penalty+Congress&hl=en
>
> By definition, DP suppoerters cannot be part of this safety net.
Nonsense.
> The simple
> fact is that they campaign to speed up executions, and reduce the
> delays.
If we have a DP, at some point we have to execute the murderer.
> If they were unopposed, all the protection that exists now
> would be stripped away , bit by bit, until nothing remained.
Ridiculous.
> If we allowed
> you to kill them quickly, they would be dead when the proof of their
> innocence
> turns up years later.
>
> Secondly, there is DIRECT. This is when groups spend time investigating
> cases looking for evidence of innocence. This is what happened in the case
> of Anthony Porter, saved due to the investigations of a bunch of students.
Sigh. These students could just as easily have been DP supporters. Using
your logic, we can conclude that anyone who is not a journalism student
advocates executing innocent people.
>
> In theory, DP supporters CAN be part of this safety net, but
> generally speaking they aren't.
>
>
> > > That's what makes the risk to innocents a valid issue, even without
> > > proof of an executed innocent. I intend to remain part of that safety
> net,
> > > or at any rate will continue to give moral support to those directly
> > > involved with saving innocents.
> >
> > But what about the 100%, undeniably innocent people who are murdered
> > by convicted murderers who were NOT executed for a previous murder?
> > I'll be happy to provide some cases where that has happened. Objecting
> > to the DP based on concern for innocent life if not supported by the
> facts.
>
> Actually, yes it is. The facts show that many innocent lives have been
> saved through the activities of DP opponents, who oppose the DP
> because of concern for innocent life. Without that concern, they wouldn't
> be anti-dp, they wouldn't be involved with protecting innocent people,
> hence innocent people would be in danger.
>
And you present yet another example of a misguided or disingenuous analysis
commonly seen by DP opponents. Keeping ALL brutal murderers alive in order
to prevent the (so far mythical) execution of an innocent person presents a
danger
to society. We have real life cases (see a few above) of murderers who
were not
executed going on to murder again. Until you can come up with something
better
than one or two examples of guys who were *released* (ie, not executed),
then
you have no leg to stand on. If you are concerned about innocent life, it
would make
more sense to expand the use of the DP. Or are you going to argue LWOP is
perfect?
Logicalpike
> One schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >
> >
> >Some anti-'s suggest that being wrongfully executed is just not 'like'
> >being killed in jail by another prisoner - that the state is not doing
> >large numbers of violent offenders, against the convicted's will. It's
> >like throwing someone into an arena of lions and saying, "I didn't kill
> >him, the lions did."
> >
> >Putting a truly nonviolent individual in the midst of violent offenders
> >would be like putting him into a shark tank.
> >
>
> prisons have evolved into hell holes is the result of a totally insensitive
> and nonsensial way to deal with guilty people.
>
Can you elaborate please? I'd be interested to hear your suggestions on this.
> JĆ¼rgen
JĆ¼rgen
Logicalpike schrieb in Nachricht ...
Well, prior to any suggestions a proper analysis of the situation has to be
done.
Empirically can be established that murders in prison are not a law of
nature, as DP-supporters like to suppose. I am not aware of even one murder
in any German prison since at least 25 years, hence it is well possible to
run prisons in a reasonable way; note: WITHOUT daily strip searches,
Supermax and Death Penalty. Surprising, isn't it? So what goes wrong in
American prisons?
Punishment is not an easy issue. A criminal is a damaged personality, and a
thoughtful measure can heal while silly bashing aggravates the damage with
certainty. I see the American way to approach to a guilty human for
outspoken aimless. Caught in retributive thinking patterns the most
important aspekt, rehabilitation for SOCIETY'S benefit, gets drowned.
JĆ¼rgen
BCarley978
> in a reasonable way; note: WITHOUT
> daily strip searches, Supermax and
> Death Penalty. Surprising, isn't it? So
> what goes wrong in American prisons?
JĆ¼rgen, my opinion as to what goes wrong in American prisons is that we
Americans, in our frequent arrogance and vain belief that we are above the
mentality of other nations, tend to enjoy playing God in relation to
individuals of low mentality, with the result that American prisons have come
to operate primarily according to principles of ego gratification and
vindication - and to eschew in large measure the once-valued elements of
rehabilitation, humanity, and professionalism in limit-setting. I am very much
ashamed of my country in this respect.
Logicalpike
> >
> >
> > I'd like to pose a challenge to readers of this newsgroup, particularly
> > anti-dp'ers:
> >
> > Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
> > degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
>
> Yes, of course I can. Incarceration.
>
sometimes. This is the case even outside the prison walls. Down here
in Dixie, there are several murderers who have stated that they have
killed, for instance, rape victims to, at least, attempt to remove
state's witness from the list of potential accusers. Without the
death penalty as a disincentive, these animals have everything to gain
by killing these victims. It appears that many DP opponents say that
LP w/o P is worse than the DP. Hmm, very interesting! This means to
them they ought to be for the DP as it is less harsh. I'll wager a bet
to the opponents of the DP who are intent on removing the anvil over
the heads of these ethical stinkers who happen to be smart enough to
kill state's witnesses. Go lobby the prison officials to place tall
towers from which our friends on death row can use these towers to
jump to their deaths if they think the DP is worse. I think we all
know that the answer would be very few since very few folks who are
given the DP wish to halt their appeals through the courts. Somtimes
it is the sins of omission that are just as evil as are the sins of
commission. The anti-DP people want to make it easier on the
murderers. It seems to me that making it easier on potential murderers
is very uncivilized because it results in more victims being murdered
than would otherwise occur. The anti-DP is making the cause of the
murderers much easier. Where is the concern from the anti-DP folks to
make it easier for the victims to have survived???
> > Incarceration you say? Not so. There are several cases of the wrongly
> > convicted being killed while serving prison sentences. Scores of innocent
> > people have been killed while wrongly incarcerated.
>
> Please try to understand. Innocent people get murdered OUTSIDE
> prison too. In fact innocent people are SAFER inside prison than outside.
>
> > The issue of the innocent executed is a red herring.
>
> wrong.
>
> > There is no criminal
> > justice punishment (which restrains criminals to some degree) that does
> > not risk innocent lives.
>
> Yes there is. Its incarceration
>
> > Some anti-'s suggest that being wrongfully executed is just not 'like'
> > being killed in jail by another prisoner - that the state is not doing
> > it. But the state is doing it
>
> wrong. Its the murdere who did it, not 'the state'
>
> >- putting the convicted in the midst of
> > large numbers of violent offenders, against the convicted's will. It's
> > like throwing someone into an arena of lions and saying, "I didn't kill
> > him, the lions did."
> >
> > Putting a truly nonviolent individual in the midst of violent offenders
> > would be like putting him into a shark tank.
> >
> > Anyway, the wrongfully convicted in both cases are just as dead. And
> > both died as direct results of being subjected to a criminal justice
> > punishment.
>
> wrong. In one case the innocent person has been killed by
> the state's ineptitude, in the other case he has been kileed by murder.
>
BCarley978
prison than outside," you are definitely kidding yourself.
A Planet Visitor
"BCarley978" <bcarl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020303165712...@mb-dd.aol.com...
> Whichever one of you made the comment that "innocent people are SAFER inside
> prison than outside," you are definitely kidding yourself.
>
to the 'safe' we assume outside of prison, but one he
wishes to use toward his agenda. 'Safe' if it exists in
prison, is 'fear.' Mind-numbing 24 hour a day fear,
that prison security cannot protect you, and you have
NO WAY to protect yourself. If it is 'safer' in prison,
than I can imagine that the original poster believes ALL
innocents should be imprisoned to insure they are
'safe.'
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le 03 Mar 2002 21:57:12 GMT, BCarley978 <bcarl...@aol.com> a Ć©crit :
>
> > Whichever one of you made the comment that "innocent people are SAFER inside
> > prison than outside," you are definitely kidding yourself.
>
> the group. Before your time, Sonny ...
>
No.. actually is was Peter Morris, just a few days ago. Do
you agree with that, desilu? I mean he IS part of your
A-team, isn't he? Think we should all get locked up for
our protection? I just CAN'T STOP LAUGHING. You
silly boy, you... taken in by someone you claim of lesser
intelligence. What does that say about YOU.... having
been trolled so easily -- by me, no less? Please, let me
savor this a bit more... it's like I've just uncorked a fine
bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild '47. And the nose is
splendid.
Peter Morris
>
> Why is it "apples vs. oranges?" Like I said many times, while the
> chance of either happening is very remote, my child is much more
> likely to be murdererd (perhaps tortured/raped) by a brutal murderer
> serving LWOP or a life sentence than being plucked off the street
> by police, charged with capital murder, then actually convicted, then
> fail all appeals, and then fail to be granted clemency. That's
> basically
> what it boils down to.
The fact thatthere are so many levels of appeal, and so much
clemency granted is largely due to the activities of DP
opponents. Imagine, however, that these protections did not
exist, and assess the relevent risks then.
Just to put this in perspective for you, about 3% of death row
inmates have their convictions overturned compared to about 1%
recidivism rate.
> That you would rather champion the rights
> of the mythical executed innocent (who more likely than not would
> be a career criminal) is your perogative. I strongly disagree
> with that position.
So you think that wrongly executing a career criminal doesn't matter?
Not that you're right, BTW. Many of the Death Row aquittals have
NOT been career criminals.
> This is very frustrating. Obviously, we are getting nowhere. I've
> already explained at least half a dozen times why. Innocents are more
> at risk without the DP than with the DP. How you can deny that is
> beyond me, since you
> can't even provide ONE friggin' credible example of an innocent person
> being executed in the last 30 or so years.
But we CAN provide proof of many innocent people being saved
through the actions of DP opponents. The fact that they were successful
in saving innocent lives does NOT indicate that the DP is safe. We can be
certain that innocent people WILL be executed IF we stop opposing it.
Peter Morris
"Logicalpike" <logic...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2c49a53.02030...@posting.google.com...
> "Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
news:<a53195$rft$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk>...
> > "One" <cold...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:a4fd3f$e6g$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd like to pose a challenge to readers of this newsgroup,
particularly
> > > anti-dp'ers:
> > >
> > > Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
> > > degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
> >
> > Yes, of course I can. Incarceration.
> >
> I think the gentleman has established that this isn't enough
> sometimes. This is the case even outside the prison walls. Down here
> in Dixie, there are several murderers who have stated that they have
> killed, for instance, rape victims to, at least, attempt to remove
> state's witness from the list of potential accusers. Without the
> death penalty as a disincentive, these animals have everything to gain
> by killing these victims
In the first place, 'the gentleman' has establoished nothing. His point was
about
the alleged risk to WRONGLY CONVICTED prisonners, yet he has
failed to establish that this exists.
In the second place, it has been shown that the DP in rape cases makes
murder MORE likely, not less. When you can be executed for rape,.
you have something to gain, and nothing to lose, by killing the victim and
removing the witness.
.
Sharpjfa
>From: "Peter Morris" no_sp...@se.com
>Date: 3/4/02 5:05 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <a5vkff$92k$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk>
snip
>Just to put this in perspective for you, about 3% of death row
>inmates have their convictions overturned compared to about 1%
>recidivism rate.
Just to add a litle acuracy to this. Convictions are overturned at about a 11%
rate, sentences 22%. There is an 8% recidivism rate for murderers on death row
and a 6.6% recidivicm rate for all murderers.
snip
sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/
Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors
victims and contributes to future victimizations.
Sharpjfa
>Message-id: <a5vl0v$95h$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk>
>
>
>"Logicalpike" <logic...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:b2c49a53.02030...@posting.google.com...
>> "Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
>news:<a53195$rft$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk>...
>> > "One" <cold...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> > news:a4fd3f$e6g$1...@panix1.panix.com...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I'd like to pose a challenge to readers of this newsgroup,
>particularly
>> > > anti-dp'ers:
>> > >
>> > > Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
>> > > degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
there is no such punishment. Incarceration is much more likely to risk the
lives of the innocent than is execution. The historical evidence of that is
simply overwhelming. Incarcerated murders harm and murder agains, in priosn,
after esacpe and after improper release. And there is no proof of an innocent
executed in the US, at least since 1900.
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
> I just CAN'T STOP LAUGHING at how clueless I am with apostrophes.
Indeed, PV.
w00f
Benny Deeni
>
> "Benny Deeni" <natsa...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:75a18ce5.02030...@posting.google.com...
>
> >
> > Why is it "apples vs. oranges?" Like I said many times, while the
> > chance of either happening is very remote, my child is much more
> > likely to be murdererd (perhaps tortured/raped) by a brutal murderer
> > serving LWOP or a life sentence than being plucked off the street
> > by police, charged with capital murder, then actually convicted, then
> > fail all appeals, and then fail to be granted clemency. That's
> > basically
> > what it boils down to.
>
> The fact thatthere are so many levels of appeal, and so much
> clemency granted is largely due to the activities of DP
> opponents. Imagine, however, that these protections did not
> exist, and assess the relevent risks then.
>
You keep arguing a point with which I already disagreed.
> Just to put this in perspective for you, about 3% of death row
> inmates have their convictions overturned compared to about 1%
> recidivism rate.
>
So what? Whether they are accurate or not, just spewing out these
numbers is meaningless. Having a small percentage of convictions
overturned is to be expected. I will repeat a few questions I already
asked, but have yet to see your resposne. "Would you be
happy if no death sentence was ever overturned? Would that make you feel
better about the death penalty?" And what percentage would be acceptable
to
you? And it's amazing to see how you (and other anti's) get so up in arms
over the mythical innocent being executed, yet at the same time try to make
it a *positive* thing that there is a 1% (or whatever percent) recidivism
rate.
I guess the innocents murdered by recidivists murders don't count, huh?
>
> > That you would rather champion the rights
> > of the mythical executed innocent (who more likely than not would
> > be a career criminal) is your perogative. I strongly disagree
> > with that position.
>
> So you think that wrongly executing a career criminal doesn't matter?
Nope. Simply pointing out that in addition to the DP posing less of a risk
(than LWOP) to innocent people, if an innocent does get executed it will
more likely than not be a criminal. Those who are murdered by recidivist
murderers can be innocent prison guards, fellow inmates, you, me or my
child. It is an unfortunate give that occasionally an innocent person will
die, and given the choice I'd rather see a criminal die than a prison guard
or a private citizen. I am NOT saying "wrongly executing" anyone "doesn't
matter."
> Not that you're right, BTW. Many of the Death Row aquittals have
> NOT been career criminals.
>
How many of them have been on death row for 10 or 15 years?
Obviously, someone who serves a year of a death sentence is not
relevant to this discussion, since I (and most DP supporters) don't
advocate executing a convicted murderer 5 minutes after the sentencing
trial.
>
> > This is very frustrating. Obviously, we are getting nowhere. I've
> > already explained at least half a dozen times why. Innocents are more
> > at risk without the DP than with the DP. How you can deny that is
> > beyond me, since you
> > can't even provide ONE friggin' credible example of an innocent person
> > being executed in the last 30 or so years.
>
> But we CAN provide proof of many innocent people being saved
> through the actions of DP opponents. The fact that they were successful
> in saving innocent lives does NOT indicate that the DP is safe. We can be
> certain that innocent people WILL be executed IF we stop opposing it.
>
You are skirting around the issue. If we abolish it (the DP), we can be
certain
that more innocents will be at risk than if we had the DP. Ignoring that
innocent citizens are murdered by those serving life sentences is misguided
at best, and dishonest at worst.
And regarding the "wrongly convicted" who have died while serving LWOP vs.
innocents
being executed, where is *your* objective study comparing the two. If you
are so concerned about innocents, I would imagine you would calculate
the numbers for both, and base your conclusion on the comparison.
A Planet Visitor
you say, then we can be certain of incarceration being certain
of preventing more murders by those incarcerated. The ONLY
certainty that stands out in the DP, is the ONE CERTAINTY that
once executed they may never murder, from that moment on,
whether they were guilty or innocent. That's a hard fact to
swallow, if we hope to put a moral face to the issue. But it is the
ONLY certainty. We cannot presume that a justice system which
functions on the principle of 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' will not
by that very principle free many of the guilty, to murder again, as well
as possibly convicting an innocent.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
news:8f088u0d9lv85c1dl...@4ax.com...> > I just CAN'T STOP LAUGHING at how clueless dirt is.
>
> Indeed, PV.
>
Indeed.
PV
> w00f
Peter Morris
> Simply more lies. Since the victims WERE NOT MURDERERS.
> Which makes Peter a liar right from the beginning. They were
> prisoners, and he has claimed that '"It has to be said four out
> of seven of the victims of these murders were criminals." And
> since they were, he must also believe that they DESERVE to be
> murdered when he wrote -- "I dont dispute that plenty of people
> *deserve* to be killed." I've never said anything remotely
> that inhumane toward my fellow man. 'Plenty of people
> deserve to be killed' -- What a DISGUSTING thought!
Plerase try to understand. Pointing out that you are lying
does NOT mean thatr I agree with your stated principles.
You have repeatedly stated that you think murderers
DESERVE to die, now you flip-flop as usual.
Logicalpike
> "Logicalpike" <logic...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b2c49a53.02030...@posting.google.com...
> > "Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
> news:<a53195$rft$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk>...
> > > "One" <cold...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > > news:a4fd3f$e6g$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to pose a challenge to readers of this newsgroup,
> particularly
> > > > anti-dp'ers:
> > > >
> > > > Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
> > > > degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
> > >
> > > Yes, of course I can. Incarceration.
> > >
> > I think the gentleman has established that this isn't enough
> > sometimes. This is the case even outside the prison walls. Down here
> > in Dixie, there are several murderers who have stated that they have
> > killed, for instance, rape victims to, at least, attempt to remove
> > state's witness from the list of potential accusers. Without the
> > death penalty as a disincentive, these animals have everything to gain
> > by killing these victims
>
> In the first place, 'the gentleman' has establoished nothing. His point was
> about
> the alleged risk to WRONGLY CONVICTED prisonners, yet he has
> failed to establish that this exists.
>
volunteer for a little stay at your neighborhood jail. I think Bubba
will quickly convince you that we are in fact right. Ignorance really
is bliss!
> In the second place, it has been shown that the DP in rape cases makes
> murder MORE likely, not less. When you can be executed for rape,.
> you have something to gain, and nothing to lose, by killing the victim and
> removing the witness.
>
Which studies "show" this? Do these same studies "show" that
incarceration "makes" murder more likely?
>
>
>
>
>
> .
A Planet Visitor
corrected what you previously claimed I said, and now
provide a TRUE statement of what I HAVE repeatedly said.
The point is, I have never claimed to NOT think SOME
murderers 'deserve' to die. You lied by presuming I HAD
SAID that 'criminals' deserve to die. Which has QUITE a
different meaning. Because SOME apples (criminals)
are red (murderers and deserve to die), does not mean
ALL apples (criminals) are red. You however said
"Plenty of people deserve to be killed." The clear implication
is that YOU wish MORE people than I do were executed.
I am much more SPECIFIC (RED apples) in WHO I believe
deserve to be executed, while you seem to feel that we just
start picking 'plenty of people' (any old apple) out of the barrel.
So, 'who' exactly ARE those 'plenty of people' you believe
'deserve to be killed'? Since I'm rather specific in who I
believe 'deserve to be killed.'
PV
One
>> Yes, but who put the wrongfully convicted in the prison with the murderer?
>> The state. Why? As a punishment. What happened? The innocent was killed.
>
> [...]
>You are missing a pretty basic point here. If you put a wrongly accused
>person in prison, there is a slim CHANCE that he might die. If you
>execute a wrongly accused person, he is CERTAINLY dead.
First, I'm talking about the wrongly convicted, not the wrongly accused.
Only the wrongly convicted are subject to capital punishment and post-
conviction incarceration.
Most importantly though, you would be correct that the wrongly convicted
would face certain death if the wrongly convicted were instantaneously
executed upon conviction.
This is not the case however. There is a mandatory verification (appeals)
process which is an integral part of the actual current system, as it
should be. Redundant, multi-faceted reviews lead to the reality that in
order to reach execution today, a convicted murderer must not only be
wildly guilty, but unlucky as well.
Anti's observe there is a chance that an innocent might slip through that
process and be wrongfully executed. This results in some chance of an
innocent being killed. Many anti's claim to oppose the DP based on this
risk to innocent life. They then present incareration as an alternative
which doesn't risk innocent life.
My point is only that incarceration does in fact risk innocent life as well.
I presented an example of the wrongly convicted being murdered in prison
(Alan Newman, ~November 2000, Maryland).
As a result, it is nonsensical to oppose the DP based on its risk to
an innocent, then put forth incarceration, which not only risks innocent
life, but clearly costs innocent life, as an alternative.
- ABJ
One
>> *>
>> *>"One" <cold...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> *>>
>> *>> I'd like to pose a challenge to readers of this newsgroup, particularly
>> *>> anti-dp'ers:
>> *>>
>> *>> Can you think of a punishment, which restrains murderers to some
>> *>> degree, that does not risk innocent lives?
>> *>
>> *>
>> *>Yes, of course I can. Incarceration.
>> *>[...]
>>
>>
>> [...]
>> 2) Ultimately it matters not a whit to my argument if all innocents were
>> in fact safer in prison. Incarceration remains a penalty which risks,
>> and in fact costs the lives of the wrongly convicted. DP Opponents have
>> falsely claimed that incarceration is a completely safe alternative to
>> the DP. Innocent lives are routinely claimed by incarceration.
>
>Who has claimed its a COMPLETELY safe alternative? NOTHING is 'completely
>safe' but imprisonment is safer than many alternatives.
Actually you just did, like 10 lines up ("Yes, of course I can.
Incarceration") in response to the original challenge to come up with a
punishment that doesn't risk innocent life. Most anti's also claim that
incarceration doesn't risk innocent life too.
>For a wrongly accused person, which is what you were talking about,
>prison is safer than execution.
Actually, I'm talking about the wrongly convicted, which is a subset of
the wrongly accused. Only the wrongly convicted are subject to capital
punishment and post-conviction incarceration.
>Not completly safe, but safer than the alternative.
You would be correct that the wrongly convicted would face certain death
if the wrongly convicted were instantaneously executed upon conviction.
This is not the case however. There is a mandatory verification (appeals)
process which is an integral part of the actual current system, as it
should be. Redundant, multi-faceted reviews lead to the reality that,
in order to reach execution today, a murder must not only be wildy guilty,
but unlucky as well.
Anti's observe there is a chance that an innocent might slip through that
process and be wrongfully executed. This results in some chance of an
innocent being killed. Many anti's claim to oppose the DP based on this
risk to innocent life. They then present incarceration as an alternative
which doesn't risk innocent life.
My point is that incarceration not only risks innocent life, it clearly
costs innocent life. I listed an example of the wrongly convicted (Alan
Newman, Maryland, ~November 2000) who was murdered by his cellmate. As a
result, it is nonsensical to oppose the DP based on its risk to an innocent,
and propose incarceration as an alternative.
>> Who is ultimately responsible for the wrongfully convicted's death is a
>> question for the tort lawyers. The fact is, the result remains the same
>> whether the state wrongfully executed the innocent, or put him in with
>> a murderer who turns around and murders him. The result is a dead innocent
>> resulting from a criminal justice punishment.
>>
>> Which again, just supports my point that incarceration is not a safe
>> alternative to the death penalty.
>>
>> Who is legally responsible may be terribly important to you, but is
>> ultimately irrelevant. The undeniable result remains an innocent dead
>> from being subject to a criminal justice punishment.
>>
>> Anti-dp'ers have claimed incarceration as a safe alternative to the DP.
>> It obviously is not. There are those who claim to oppose the DP on the
>> basis that it risks innocent lives, and put forth incarceration as an
>> alternative which does not. That argument is not true. Incarceration
>> not only risks innocent lives, it observably costs innocent lives.
>
>Your whole argument is flawed, IMHO. You point out that wrongly
>accused persons are sometimes murdered in prison. Your solution
>to this is to execute the wrongly accused persons, so to protect them
>from being murdered.
>
>That is possibly the least convincing pro-dp argument I have ever heard.
Wow. That's probably the least convincing pro-dp argument I've ever heard
too. Fortunately, I didn't put it forward, you did. This is called a
'strawman', where you accuse your opponent of saying something he didn't
and then deftly proceed to demolish the argument that you falsely attribute
to him.
My actual argument is this:
1) DP opponents frequently claim to oppose capital punishment on the
basis that it poses a risk to the lives of the wrongly convicted.
2) They then propose incarceration as an alternative penalty, claiming it
does not risk the lives of the wrongly convicted.
3) However, incarceration risks the lives of the wrongly convicted and I
noted an example of a prisoner wrongly convicted of murder (Alan Newman,
Maryland) who was murdered by his cellmate (November 2000).
4) I conclude that incarceration also risks the lives of the wrongly
convicted, and is not a safe alternative to capital punishment.
That's it.
>What about persons wrongly accused of shoplifting? They might
>be murdered in prison too. Should we execute them as well?
>According to you, being executed is exactly the same as being murdered,
>so whats the difference.
What?
I have no idea how you deduced this from anything I said. I'd be interested
in seeing how you concluded this. Could you post a bullet-list progression
from something I actually said leading to the above conclusion? In that
format, it would be easier for me to identify your error.
>[ Note to PV - I am DISAGREEING with him on this point. The
>previous paragraph is something called sarcasm. I have to explain
>this to you because you usually manage to interpret this sort of thing
>literally ]
You are attempting to be sarcastic based on an erroneous conclusion.
Sarcasm can be bitingly effective when based on facts and accurate
conclusions. Sarcasm based on a faulty conclusion is, regrettably,
merely embarrassing.
- ABJ
A Planet Visitor
>
> Peter Morris <no_sp...@se.com> wrote:
> >
> >"One" <cold...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> Yes, but who put the wrongfully convicted in the prison with the murderer?
> >> The state. Why? As a punishment. What happened? The innocent was killed.
> >
> > [...]
> >You are missing a pretty basic point here. If you put a wrongly accused
> >person in prison, there is a slim CHANCE that he might die. If you
> >execute a wrongly accused person, he is CERTAINLY dead.
>
> First, I'm talking about the wrongly convicted, not the wrongly accused.
You'll find that Peter doesn't know the difference.
<rest clipped>
PV
>
> - ABJ
>
>
A Planet Visitor
>
> Peter Morris <no_sp...@se.com> wrote:
> >
> >"One" <cold...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Peter Morris <no_sp...@se.com> wrote:
> >> *>
> >> *>"One" <cold...@panix.com> wrote in message
<clipped>
> >[ Note to PV - I am DISAGREEING with him on this point. The
> >previous paragraph is something called sarcasm. I have to explain
> >this to you because you usually manage to interpret this sort of thing
> >literally ]
>
> You are attempting to be sarcastic based on an erroneous conclusion.
> Sarcasm can be bitingly effective when based on facts and accurate
> conclusions. Sarcasm based on a faulty conclusion is, regrettably,
> merely embarrassing.
>
Sorry again.. like 'accused' and 'convicted,' Peter does not know
the difference between 'sarcasm' and 'embarrassment.'
PV
>
> - ABJ
>
>
>
Peter Morris
"Sharpjfa" <shar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020304094652...@mb-fh.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Challenge to anti-dp'ers
> >From: "Peter Morris" no_sp...@se.com
> >Date: 3/4/02 5:05 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <a5vkff$92k$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk>
> snip
> >Just to put this in perspective for you, about 3% of death row
> >inmates have their convictions overturned compared to about 1%
> >recidivism rate.
>
> Just to add a litle acuracy to this. Convictions are overturned at about a
11%
> rate, sentences 22%. There is an 8% recidivism rate for murderers on death
row
> and a 6.6% recidivicm rate for all murderers.
Thasnk you Dudley, you have just proven that death sentences actually
INCREASE the murder rate. Well done.
Peter Morris
>
> "Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
> news:a5vkff$92k$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
> >
> > "Benny Deeni" <natsa...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > news:75a18ce5.02030...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > >
> > > Why is it "apples vs. oranges?" Like I said many times, while the
> > > chance of either happening is very remote, my child is much more
> > > likely to be murdererd (perhaps tortured/raped) by a brutal murderer
> > > serving LWOP or a life sentence than being plucked off the street
> > > by police, charged with capital murder, then actually convicted, then
> > > fail all appeals, and then fail to be granted clemency. That's
> > > basically
> > > what it boils down to.
> >
> > The fact thatthere are so many levels of appeal, and so much
> > clemency granted is largely due to the activities of DP
> > opponents. Imagine, however, that these protections did not
> > exist, and assess the relevent risks then.
> >
>
> You keep arguing a point with which I already disagreed.
without reason.
>
> > Just to put this in perspective for you, about 3% of death row
> > inmates have their convictions overturned compared to about 1%
> > recidivism rate.
> >
>
> So what? Whether they are accurate or not, just spewing out these
> numbers is meaningless.
and yet your lot spews out numbers on a regular basis. When you
hear the other side you just stick your fingers in your ears and shout
LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU.
> Having a small percentage of convictions
> overturned is to be expected. I will repeat a few questions I already
> asked, but have yet to see your resposne.
The questions have no meaning. If you ask a stupid question, you
will get a stupid answer.
> "Would you be
> happy if no death sentence was ever overturned? Would that make you feel
> better about the death penalty?" And what percentage would be acceptable
> to
> you? And it's amazing to see how you (and other anti's) get so up in
arms
> over the mythical innocent being executed
See, this is how you just distort what is said. I have never claimed that
there HAS been an innocent executed, I have claimed that DP opponents
have PREVENTED innocents from being executed. If we just stood back
and let you kill anyone you want, innocents WILL die. There's zero doubt
about that.
>, yet at the same time try to make
> it a *positive* thing that there is a 1% (or whatever percent) recidivism
> rate.
> I guess the innocents murdered by recidivists murders don't count, huh?
>
>
>
> >
> > > That you would rather champion the rights
> > > of the mythical executed innocent (who more likely than not would
> > > be a career criminal) is your perogative. I strongly disagree
> > > with that position.
> >
> > So you think that wrongly executing a career criminal doesn't matter?
>
> Nope. Simply pointing out that in addition to the DP posing less of a
risk
> (than LWOP) to innocent people, if an innocent does get executed it will
> more likely than not be a criminal.
So in other words, you think that wrongly executing a career criminal
doesn't matter.
Not that you're right, BTW. Many of the Death Row acquittals have
NOT been career criminals.
Incidentally, suppose that I pointed out to you that many of the victims
of recidivist murders are themselves career criminals, murdered
in prison, would that make a difference to your opinion?
Note to Planet Visitor: It is Benny, not me, that distinguishes between
'career criminals' and ordinary people. Pointing the above fact
out to him does not mean that I agree with him, any more than it meant
that I agree with you when you said similar.
> Those who are murdered by recidivist
> murderers can be innocent prison guards, fellow inmates, you, me or my
> child. It is an unfortunate give that occasionally an innocent person
will
> die, and given the choice I'd rather see a criminal die than a prison
guard
> or a private citizen. I am NOT saying "wrongly executing" anyone "doesn't
> matter."
>
> > Not that you're right, BTW. Many of the Death Row acquittals have
> > NOT been career criminals.
> >
>
> How many of them have been on death row for 10 or 15 years?
Lots of them.Take a look at
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innoccases.html
look at dates of conviction and release, and see just how long it takes.
Randall Dale Adams - 12 years, Anthony Porter - 16 years
And many, many others.
While you're at it, look at how few of them were 'career criminals.'
There were some, but not many.
> Obviously, someone who serves a year of a death sentence is not
> relevant to this discussion, since I (and most DP supporters) don't
> advocate executing a convicted murderer 5 minutes after the sentencing
> trial.
>
>
> >
> > > This is very frustrating. Obviously, we are getting nowhere. I've
> > > already explained at least half a dozen times why. Innocents are more
> > > at risk without the DP than with the DP. How you can deny that is
> > > beyond me, since you
> > > can't even provide ONE friggin' credible example of an innocent person
> > > being executed in the last 30 or so years.
> >
> > But we CAN provide proof of many innocent people being saved
> > through the actions of DP opponents. The fact that they were successful
> > in saving innocent lives does NOT indicate that the DP is safe. We can
be
> > certain that innocent people WILL be executed IF we stop opposing it.
> >
>
> You are skirting around the issue.
No, I am telling you what the issue is. YOU keep dodging it.
If we abolish it (the DP), we can be
> certain
> that more innocents will be at risk than if we had the DP.
wrong.
> Ignoring that
> innocent citizens are murdered by those serving life sentences is
misguided
> at best, and dishonest at worst.
Who is ignoring it? I simply point out to you the facts that this
happens LESS OFTEN than wrongful death sentences.
In the years post-Furman almost 100 innocent people have been
released from death row. The fact that they were still alive to release is
largely due to DP opponents. Left up to you, they would be long dead.
Do you honestly think that the executions in that time have saved 100 lives?
Peter Morris
You'll find that PV doen't know his arse from his elbow
Peter Morris
Of course I do.
My posts are sarcastic.
Your posts are an embarrasment.
Peter Morris
> My actual argument is this:
> 1) DP opponents frequently claim to oppose capital punishment on the
> basis that it poses a risk to the lives of the wrongly convicted.
> 2) They then propose incarceration as an alternative penalty, claiming it
> does not risk the lives of the wrongly convicted.
No, we say it poses LESS risk. There is no such thing in this world
as NO risk.
> 3) However, incarceration risks the lives of the wrongly convicted and I
> noted an example of a prisoner wrongly convicted of murder (Alan
Newman,
> Maryland) who was murdered by his cellmate (November 2000).
> 4) I conclude that incarceration also risks the lives of the wrongly
> convicted, and is not a safe alternative to capital punishment.
> That's it.
>
>
> >What about persons wrongly accused of shoplifting? They might
> >be murdered in prison too. Should we execute them as well?
> >According to you, being executed is exactly the same as being murdered,
> >so whats the difference.
>
> What?
>
> I have no idea how you deduced this from anything I said. I'd be
interested
> in seeing how you concluded this. Could you post a bullet-list progression
> from something I actually said leading to the above conclusion? In that
> format, it would be easier for me to identify your error.
OK, you said excactly:
----------
[QUOTE] Some anti-'s suggest that being wrongfully executed is just not
'like'
being killed in jail by another prisoner - that the state is not doing
it. But the state is doing it - putting the convicted in the midst of
large numbers of violent offenders, against the convicted's will. It's
like throwing someone into an arena of lions and saying, "I didn't kill
him, the lions did."
Putting a truly nonviolent individual in the midst of violent offenders
would be like putting him into a shark tank.
Anyway, the wrongfully convicted in both cases are just as dead. And
both died as direct results of being subjected to a criminal justice
punishment. [UNQUOTE]
-------------
You have said that a person wrongly convicted of murder might
be murdered in prison, so its ok to execute him.
From this, I say that a person wrongly convicted of shoplifting
might be murdered in prison, so is it ok to execute him too?
This is a direct follow on from what you said.
Benny Deeni
> "Benny Deeni" <natsa...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:B2Xg8.234$tg2....@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> >
> > "Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
> > news:a5vkff$92k$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
> > >
> > > "Benny Deeni" <natsa...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > > news:75a18ce5.02030...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Why is it "apples vs. oranges?" Like I said many times, while the
> > > > chance of either happening is very remote, my child is much more
> > > > likely to be murdererd (perhaps tortured/raped) by a brutal murderer
> > > > serving LWOP or a life sentence than being plucked off the street
> > > > by police, charged with capital murder, then actually convicted, then
> > > > fail all appeals, and then fail to be granted clemency. That's
> > > > basically
> > > > what it boils down to.
> > >
> > > The fact thatthere are so many levels of appeal, and so much
> > > clemency granted is largely due to the activities of DP
> > > opponents. Imagine, however, that these protections did not
> > > exist, and assess the relevent risks then.
> > >
> >
> > You keep arguing a point with which I already disagreed.
>
> without reason.
You made the claim, now back it up with something
other than illogic and speculation. I pointed out your
flawed logic already. Your strategy of portraying DP supporters
as people who do not care if innocent people are railroaded and executed
without any opportunity for appeals is ridiculous.
>
> >
> > > Just to put this in perspective for you, about 3% of death row
> > > inmates have their convictions overturned compared to about 1%
> > > recidivism rate.
> > >
> >
> > So what? Whether they are accurate or not, just spewing out these
> > numbers is meaningless.
>
> and yet your lot spews out numbers on a regular basis. When you
> hear the other side you just stick your fingers in your ears and shout
> LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU.
Once again you avoid the point with ad hominem.
>
> > Having a small percentage of convictions
> > overturned is to be expected. I will repeat a few questions I already
> > asked, but have yet to see your resposne.
>
> The questions have no meaning. If you ask a stupid question, you
> will get a stupid answer.
Sure they have meaning. You are showing your stupidity by avoiding
them.
>
> > "Would you be
> > happy if no death sentence was ever overturned? Would that make you feel
> > better about the death penalty?" And what percentage would be acceptable
> > to
> > you? And it's amazing to see how you (and other anti's) get so up in
> arms
> > over the mythical innocent being executed
>
> See, this is how you just distort what is said.
Typical nonsense. You avoided the first 3 questions.
> I have never claimed that
> there HAS been an innocent executed, I have claimed that DP opponents
> have PREVENTED innocents from being executed. If we just stood back
> and let you kill anyone you want, innocents WILL die. There's zero doubt
> about that.
Huh? You are going off the deep end. Where did anyone ever say
I should be allowed to "kill anyone" I "want." What the heck
are you rambling about? Again, your juvenile strategy of
equating DP supporters with people who want to "kill anyone [they] want"
only shows your lack of substance.
And that you keep avoiding the valid point that keeping ALL murderers alive
(in prison) risks innocent lives as well is quite revealing also.
Why don't you blame yourself for the death of Kenneth McDuff's post-release
murder victims? Hell, it was DP opponents who got the DP suspended,
right? Look what happened.
>
> >, yet at the same time try to make
> > it a *positive* thing that there is a 1% (or whatever percent) recidivism
> > rate.
> > I guess the innocents murdered by recidivists murders don't count, huh?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > That you would rather champion the rights
> > > > of the mythical executed innocent (who more likely than not would
> > > > be a career criminal) is your perogative. I strongly disagree
> > > > with that position.
> > >
> > > So you think that wrongly executing a career criminal doesn't matter?
> >
> > Nope. Simply pointing out that in addition to the DP posing less of a
> risk
> > (than LWOP) to innocent people, if an innocent does get executed it will
> > more likely than not be a criminal.
>
> So in other words, you think that wrongly executing a career criminal
> doesn't matter.
Sigh. I just explained it to you.
>
> Not that you're right, BTW. Many of the Death Row acquittals have
> NOT been career criminals.
>
> Incidentally, suppose that I pointed out to you that many of the victims
> of recidivist murders are themselves career criminals, murdered
> in prison, would that make a difference to your opinion?
A certain percentage would be criminals (ie, fellow inmates.)
I never argued otherwise.
>
> Note to Planet Visitor: It is Benny, not me, that distinguishes between
> 'career criminals' and ordinary people. Pointing the above fact
> out to him does not mean that I agree with him, any more than it meant
> that I agree with you when you said similar.
????
>
>
> > Those who are murdered by recidivist
> > murderers can be innocent prison guards, fellow inmates, you, me or my
> > child. It is an unfortunate give that occasionally an innocent person
> will
> > die, and given the choice I'd rather see a criminal die than a prison
> guard
> > or a private citizen. I am NOT saying "wrongly executing" anyone "doesn't
> > matter."
> >
> > > Not that you're right, BTW. Many of the Death Row acquittals have
> > > NOT been career criminals.
> > >
> >
> > How many of them have been on death row for 10 or 15 years?
>
> Lots of them.Take a look at
> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innoccases.html
> look at dates of conviction and release, and see just how long it takes.
>
> Randall Dale Adams - 12 years, Anthony Porter - 16 years
Anthony Porter was a criminal, Peter.
> And many, many others.
"Many, many"???
>
> While you're at it, look at how few of them were 'career criminals.'
> There were some, but not many.
Why don't you look at it, tough guy. You're the one
making the bogus argument in the first place.
>
> > Obviously, someone who serves a year of a death sentence is not
> > relevant to this discussion, since I (and most DP supporters) don't
> > advocate executing a convicted murderer 5 minutes after the sentencing
> > trial.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > This is very frustrating. Obviously, we are getting nowhere. I've
> > > > already explained at least half a dozen times why. Innocents are more
> > > > at risk without the DP than with the DP. How you can deny that is
> > > > beyond me, since you
> > > > can't even provide ONE friggin' credible example of an innocent person
> > > > being executed in the last 30 or so years.
> > >
> > > But we CAN provide proof of many innocent people being saved
> > > through the actions of DP opponents. The fact that they were successful
> > > in saving innocent lives does NOT indicate that the DP is safe. We can
> be
> > > certain that innocent people WILL be executed IF we stop opposing it.
> > >
> >
> > You are skirting around the issue.
>
> No, I am telling you what the issue is. YOU keep dodging it.
I'm not dodging anything. There's nothing to dodge. You are
pretending there is no (or less, it's hard to tell, you keep
changing your story) risk to innocent lives if we keep ALL
brutal murderers alive rather than execute some. You've made
no attempt to objectively measure the risk of not executing
murderers.
>
> If we abolish it (the DP), we can be
> > certain
> > that more innocents will be at risk than if we had the DP.
>
> wrong.
Right. At least until you come up with something more than hot air.
>
> > Ignoring that
> > innocent citizens are murdered by those serving life sentences is
> misguided
> > at best, and dishonest at worst.
>
> Who is ignoring it? I simply point out to you the facts that this
> happens LESS OFTEN than wrongful death sentences.
I already pointed out that you are making a bogus comparison
here, apples and oranges. The valid comparisons would be either:
1) innocents executed vs. innocents dying in prison while serving LWOP
and innocents murdered by brutal murderers who were NOT executed for
a previous murder, or
2) wrongful death sentences vs. wrongful life sentences.
If you can't understand this, then I don't know what else to say.
>
> In the years post-Furman almost 100 innocent people have been
> released from death row. The fact that they were still alive to release is
> largely due to DP opponents. Left up to you, they would be long dead.
More silly ad hominem.
>
> Do you honestly think that the executions in that time have saved 100 lives?
Bogus question based on an invalid comparison, see above.
Your argument is bogus.
A Planet Visitor
Copy cat. :-)
PV
A Planet Visitor
Well, there you go -- I told you that you didn't know the
difference.
PV
Sharpjfa
>Message-id: <a6i24s$ef6$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk>
what a maroon.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:49:18 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
Ć©crit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> You'll find that PV doen't know his arse from his elbow
>
> > Copy cat. :-)
>
> many mirrors he has broken, from 'high-fiving' himself ...
>
The difference is I don't FEAR mirrors, my friend. I
am afraid that were you to look in the mirror, you
would not hi-five yourself, but feel a crushing pain
to your soul.
Le monde est plein de fous, et qui n*en veut pas voir
Doit se tenir tout seul, et casser son miroir.
The world is full of fools, and he who would see none
should live alone and smash his mirrors.
Claude Le Petit
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |HIDING FROM MIRRORS #1
Peter Morris
>
> You made the claim, now back it up with something
> other than illogic and speculation.
Done already
> I pointed out your
> flawed logic already.
No.
> Your strategy of portraying DP supporters
> as people who do not care if innocent people are railroaded and executed
> without any opportunity for appeals is ridiculous.
I never said anything remotely like that.
What I said, and what your own words have proved, is that
you simply refuse to BELIEVE in the danger.
Because you don't bwelieve in the danger, you take no part
in eliminating it.
> > The questions have no meaning. If you ask a stupid question, you
> > will get a stupid answer.
>
>
> Sure they have meaning. You are showing your stupidity by avoiding
> them.
Usual reaction from DP supporter, you cant answer
my point so you resort to insults.
> Huh? You are going off the deep end. blah blah
> juvenile yadda yadda your lack of substance.
Usual reaction from DP supporter, you cant answer
my point so you resort to insults.
> > > if an innocent does get executed it will
> > > more likely than not be a criminal.
> >
> > So in other words, you think that wrongly executing a career criminal
> > doesn't matter.
>
> Sigh. I just explained it to you.
You did indeed explain to me that wrongly executing a career criminal
doesn't matter. You said it twice.
> > Incidentally, suppose that I pointed out to you that many of the victims
> > of recidivist murders are themselves career criminals, murdered
> > in prison, would that make a difference to your opinion?
>
>
> A certain percentage would be criminals (ie, fellow inmates.)
> I never argued otherwise.
But you think that a wrongly executed career criminal; doesn't
matter. Do you apply the same principal to murdered career
criminals, or are you a hypocrite.
Peter Morris
> >
> The difference is I don't FEAR mirrors, my friend...
... because you don't reflect in them?
(FX lightning flashes, thunder roars.)
OtheRDAS
>What I said, and what your own words have proved, is that
>you simply refuse to BELIEVE in the danger.
>
>Because you don't bwelieve in the danger, you take no part
>in eliminating it.
>
How typical of a leftist, an assumption of a problem, no proof of it and a
dismisal of those who argue against it with a need to "elevate their
consciousness" so that may become aware of the true reality and the problem
that neds solving. At least that's how it seems, please clarify where it's
wrong... if it is, with more facts and information on the subject debated.
otherdas
>
>> > The questions have no meaning. If you ask a stupid question, you
>> > will get a stupid answer.
>>
>>
>> Sure they have meaning. You are showing your stupidity by avoiding
>> them.
>
>Usual reaction from DP supporter, you cant answer
>my point so you resort to insults.
It seems that here you are again avoiding the question, and on top of it claim
the other person is dodgin the question!
Benny Deeni
> >From: "Peter Morris" no_sp...@se.com
>
> >What I said, and what your own words have proved, is that
> >you simply refuse to BELIEVE in the danger.
> >
> >Because you don't bwelieve in the danger, you take no part
> >in eliminating it.
> >
>
> How typical of a leftist, an assumption of a problem, no proof of it and a
> dismisal of those who argue against it with a need to "elevate their
> consciousness" so that may become aware of the true reality and the problem
> that neds solving. At least that's how it seems, please clarify where it's
> wrong... if it is, with more facts and information on the subject debated.
>
Well said.
He apparently doesn't have too many facts; certainly not those that
might create a problem for his pre-conceived ideas that a)DP supporters
don't care if innocents are executed, and b) imprisonment carries less
of a risk to innocents than the death penalty.
> otherdas
>
> >
> >> > The questions have no meaning. If you ask a stupid question, you
> >> > will get a stupid answer.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sure they have meaning. You are showing your stupidity by avoiding
> >> them.
> >
> >Usual reaction from DP supporter, you cant answer
> >my point so you resort to insults.
>
> It seems that here you are again avoiding the question, and on top of it claim
> the other person is dodgin the question!
Pretty blatant, isn't it!!
OtheRDAS
have claimed that DP opponents have PREVENTED innocents from being executed.
If we just stood back and let you kill anyone you want, innocents WILL die.
There's zero doubt about that.
==
There is no doubt about innocents dying. The question is what policy will
produce the fewest numbers of innocent deaths? Figures show murders who are
released fom jail will kill again. Figures also show states with the DP have a
lower crime rate over time (thus preventing people from getting murdered, as
well as robbed, mugged, raped...). This can also be shown for sexual predators.
Given this zero doubt about people going to die, how can people be anti-DP whne
it will lead to greater amounts of wrongful death and crime?
otherdas
OtheRDAS
From this, I say that a person wrongly convicted of shoplifting
might be murdered in prison, so is it ok to execute him too?
This is a direct follow on from what you said.
==
You are playing with semantics. It makes your position look weak. Try a real
argument to back your position, or stop wasting peoples tme with junk posts.
otherdas
Tim & CiCi Simpson
PLEASE SEE THIS AND THEN REPLY TO THIS! ITS ABOUT MY HOME STATE AND IT JUST
SHOWS YOU HOW OUR SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK AND HOW RACIST FLORIDA REDNECKS ARE
AND POLICE HERE IN GAINSVILLE FLORIDA! PLEASE WATCH!
"OtheRDAS" <othe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020409053513...@mb-cf.aol.com...