DNA clears man on death row since '83
Earl Evleth
Still another.
And thank God that state doesn`t execute quickly.
Earl
PENNSYLVANIA:
Lawyer: DNA clears man on death row since '83
DNA evidence proves that a man on death row since 1983 for rape and murder
is innocent, a defense attorney said today. Nicholas James Yarris, 42, of
Philadelphia, who is on death row for the murder of Linda Mae Craig, 32,
of Boothwyn, was convicted based on unreliable forensic evidence and
witness testimony that put him at the scene of the crime, attorney
Christina Swarns said.
Recently completed testing shows that Yarris' DNA did not match physical
evidence left on the victim's clothing and under her fingernails, said
Swarns, of the Federal Defender Association of Philadelphia. The
association said that Yarris is the 1st person on death row in
Pennsylvania to be cleared by DNA testing. In the late 1980s, Yarris - who
has maintained his innocence - became 1 of the 1st prisoners in
Pennsylvania to demand DNA testing. Tests done in 1992 proved
inconclusive.
After Yarris exhausted his appeals in the state courts, federal defenders
took over the case and in 1997 demanded new tests, which were completed
last week by a private lab in California, Swarns said.
Each piece of evidence - gloves left in the victim's car, the victim's
underwear and skin samples from under her fingernails - kept by the
Delaware County District Attorneys Office, was retested and each piece
excluded Yarris, Swarns said.
The Delaware County District Attorney's Office did not immediately return
a call seeking comment. A jury in July 1982 convicted Yarris, then 21, of
1st-degree murder, rape, kidnapping and robbery. Prosecutors had argued
that Craig, who worked part-time at the Tri-State Shopping Mall in
Claymont, Del., resembled a girlfriend of Yarris' who had jilted him.
He was sentenced to death in January 1983 and is on death row at the
Graterford state prison. Witnesses testified that Yarris stalked Craig - a
married mother of 3 working part time at the mall to earn Christmas money
- for 10 days, abducted her in her own car from the parking lot on Dec.
15, 1981, and drove her across the state line to Pennsylvania.
Her badly beaten body, with a half dozen stab wounds to the chest, was
discovered the following day by children who were making a snowman in a
church parking lot in Upper Chichester, Delaware County, not far from her
home.
In 1985, Yarris dashed away from deputies, who had stopped to let him use
a service station restroom, while being taken to a courthouse in Media for
a hearing on an appeal of the murder conviction. Amid a nationwide
manhunt, he was picked up in a stolen car by Florida authorities 25 days
after his escape.
(source: Associated Press)
Euro
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> ??????:BB4C527A.F2BE%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>
>
>
> Still another.
>
> And thank God that state doesn`t execute quickly.
>
> Earl
>
Terrific... 42 years of life, 50% of which facing death on death row with
the idea that he was innocent. He can be glad he hasn't lost life, but he's
still lost _his_ life. Sharp will have to update his stats.
Euro
Earl Evleth
4b1e542e353edba7...@news.meganetnews.com, "Euro"
<vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sharp will have to update his stats.
Sharp never updates anything. It is a mental problem.
Earl
danh
news:4b1e542e353edba7...@news.meganetnews.com...
> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
??????:BB4C527A.F2BE%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> >
> > Still another.
> >
> > And thank God that state doesn`t execute quickly.
>
> the idea that he was innocent. He can be glad he hasn't lost life, but
he's
> still lost _his_ life. Sharp will have to update his stats.
One common thread that all (AFAIK) DNA exonerations have, is that none of
the defendants were accused on multiple murders. As a mostly anti-dp
advocate (despite the opinions of some), it is gratifying that we continue
to seek proof of innocence and occasionally find it. I am aware of other
cases in which the dp was not imposed where the prisoner languished in a
cell for years before DNA showed innocence. Time can no more be restored
than life.
If the dp is to be used, it must be reserved for those who can objectively
and without doubt be found guilty of multiple murders. The problem with not
having the dp available is that the maximum penalty for serial killers is
then the same as for many other, lesser crimes.
[...]
drdoody
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:BB4C527A.F2BE%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>
>
>
> Still another.
>
> And thank God that state doesn`t execute quickly.
>
> Earl
I wonder how long those samples remain reliable.
Hey, we might have let a murderer walk the streets by mistake but at least
he won't be executed, thank God.
Doc
FitzHerbert
I know it's completely academic, but would you say it was very likely
indeed that Albert De Salvo would have been convicted and executed as
'the Boston Strangler' had he been put on trial?
danh
news:f85d58f0.03072...@posting.google.com...
[...]
> I know it's completely academic, but would you say it was very likely
> indeed that Albert De Salvo would have been convicted and executed as
> 'the Boston Strangler' had he been put on trial?
Probably. The lack of DNA evidence makes it unknowable though.
Are there any circumstances in which you would consider the dp justified?
FitzHerbert
Nope. I would not feel safe in a country where the government is
allowed to slay its citizens in cold blood. The same 'feeling of
anxiety' is engendered (to a lesser degree) when habeas corpus is
revoked.
IMHO no state should have that much power over its citizens.
So it doesn't matter how "justified" the death-sentence may seem in
any particular case. My chief problem is with the state getting blood
on its hands.
And, as has been pointed out again and again, DP-free Europe has a
lower murder-rate than DP-Loving USA.
danh
[...]
> > Are there any circumstances in which you would consider the dp
justified?
>
> Nope. I would not feel safe in a country where the government is
> allowed to slay its citizens in cold blood. The same 'feeling of
> anxiety' is engendered (to a lesser degree) when habeas corpus is
> revoked.
>
> IMHO no state should have that much power over its citizens.
In that case, address these questions:
Are there some prisoners sentenced to death who remain a continuing danger
to guards and other inmates?
If the answer to the previous question is yes, then how would you propose to
incarcerate them with regard to others' safety while ensuring their
constitutional rights? The dp is specifically countenanced in the U.S.
Constitution so your answer must necessarily reflect the preservation of all
their rights, not some latter day human rights claim.
If you need to review the U.S. Constitution and amendments, go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
> So it doesn't matter how "justified" the death-sentence may seem in
> any particular case. My chief problem is with the state getting blood
> on its hands.
What responsibility does the state bear for one of their charges killing
another inmate or a guard? For example, of the 558 death row inmates freed
from death row by Furman, several were responsible for 8 (IIRC) in-prison
murders. Explain why the state doesn't have those new victims' blood on its
hands.
> And, as has been pointed out again and again, DP-free Europe has a
> lower murder-rate than DP-Loving USA.
You wouldn't be so simplistic as to suggest that single difference is
responsible for the difference in murder rates, would you? If not, then
explain how merely eliminating the dp will lower the rate.
Jigsaw1695
Wow!! All the US has to do is eliminate the DP and the murder rate will
fall.
dirtdog
wrote:
>"FitzHerbert" <FitzHerb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f85d58f0.0307...@posting.google.com...
>> "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
>news:<bg8d14$htb$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>...
>
>[...]
>
>> > Are there any circumstances in which you would consider the dp
>justified?
>>
>> Nope. I would not feel safe in a country where the government is
>> allowed to slay its citizens in cold blood. The same 'feeling of
>> anxiety' is engendered (to a lesser degree) when habeas corpus is
>> revoked.
>>
>> IMHO no state should have that much power over its citizens.
>
Sorry to but in on your questions, Neville, but Danny-Poos' post was
so incompetent that I just couldn't resist.
>In that case, address these questions:
>
>Are there some prisoners sentenced to death who remain a continuing danger
>to guards and other inmates?
>If the answer to the previous question is yes, then how would you propose to
>incarcerate them with regard to others' safety while ensuring their
>constitutional rights? The dp is specifically countenanced in the U.S.
>Constitution so your answer must necessarily reflect the preservation of all
>their rights, not some latter day human rights claim.
What utter nonsense, Daniel
>If you need to review the U.S. Constitution and amendments, go to:
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
>
>> So it doesn't matter how "justified" the death-sentence may seem in
>> any particular case. My chief problem is with the state getting blood
>> on its hands.
>
>What responsibility does the state bear for one of their charges killing
>another inmate or a guard? For example, of the 558 death row inmates freed
>from death row by Furman, several were responsible for 8 (IIRC) in-prison
>murders. Explain why the state doesn't have those new victims' blood on its
>hands.
Because the state has not killed those inmates, you simpleton. Their
murderers did.
Are you really so dense that you cannot see the difference in
culpability between the state actively killing individuals by gassing
or electrocuting them and in-prison murder by inmates? The former is
sanctioned and most importantly, _carried out_ by the state, the
latter clearly is not. Please pull yourself together.
In any case, your statistics say it all. Let us assume the most
extreme case (which, I assume from your caveat of 'several' did not
apply) took place, and that of those 558 'freed' prisoners, 8 went on
to kill again. THis means that only just over a single percent of
those on death row posed a further risk in prison. Now I'm no
statistician (I shall leave the chest thumping to 'professional
writers' (LOL) such as you), but even I can see that the Furman
decision prevented 550 _needless_ executions by the state (of course,
applying your own test that it is justified to execute those who pose
a continuing threat whilst in prison).
You seem to be most proud of your constantly stated position whereby
you attempt to back your opponent into a corner by pointing to the
lacuna in the ideology of the principled abolitionist whereby they
refuse to accept execution as appropriate to even the most dangerous
offender. I am, quite frankly, sick and tired of reading your
self-satisfied question of 'do you ever believe that the DP is
appropriate?' in the hope that your interlocutor cannot deny that some
of the most savage murderers _deserve_ to die.
Of course, you ignore the most simple explanation. I, for example, am
a principled abolitionist. I reject the Death Penalty in _any
circumstances_. THis is not to say that I do not believe that the DP
is justified in many cases by any means. It just means that as an
educated Lawyer, I am able to appreciate that my human gut desire for
retribution does not translate into a workable and just policy - which
is, after all, an absolute _must_ in good law making. There is simply
no way to discern which offenders pose a real and continuing threat
with any degree of accuracy sufficient to justify killing them without
carrying out out needless, unjust, and above all, _unsafe_ sentencing.
I thus reject the DP in all its forms.
>
>> And, as has been pointed out again and again, DP-free Europe has a
>> lower murder-rate than DP-Loving USA.
>
>You wouldn't be so simplistic as to suggest that single difference is
>responsible for the difference in murder rates, would you? If not, then
>explain how merely eliminating the dp will lower the rate.
You wouldn't be so naive as to suggest that the guns 'n' death culture
of the US (contributed to by the DP) is not he main reason for your
huge murder rate?
w00f
Peter Morris
> What responsibility does the state bear for one of their charges killing
> another inmate or a guard? For example, of the 558 death row inmates
freed
> from death row by Furman, several were responsible for 8 (IIRC) in-prison
> murders. Explain why the state doesn't have those new victims' blood on
its
> hands.
I believe it was 6 in prison, four prisonners and two guards, and three
outside prison. It also is my understanding that those four prisonners
were themselves former death-row residents. Therefore, if the executions
had proceeded they would have died anyway.
PV usually twists my words beyond recognition at this point, claiming that
I agree with his statement that they 'deservesd to be murdered' I do no
such
thing. I just point out that applying the DP would NOT have saved their
lives.
And what is more, 6 of those 558 commutees were later proved to be innocent.
Another point to consider is that 79 of those 558, had been sentenced
to death for crimes other than murder, 75 for rape, 4 for armed robbery.
So, by abolishing the DP they saved the life of 79 non-murderers and 6
innocent
people, but lost 5 innocent people. On the whole, we gained more than we
lost.
I can live with that.
--
_______________________
/_____________________(_)
| _____________________ email to
| | |__________________(_) Peter_Morris_1 at
| |/____________________ btinternet dot com
|_____________________(_)
danh
news:bg9n7u$j7$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> news:bg9199$cec$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
>
> > What responsibility does the state bear for one of their charges killing
> > another inmate or a guard? For example, of the 558 death row inmates
> freed
> > from death row by Furman, several were responsible for 8 (IIRC)
in-prison
> > murders. Explain why the state doesn't have those new victims' blood on
> its
> > hands.
>
> I believe it was 6 in prison, four prisonners and two guards, and three
> outside prison. It also is my understanding that those four prisonners
> were themselves former death-row residents.
This does leave the 2 guards who were killed. Their lives count too.
McDuff is was convicted in numerous murders, he was convicted of a felony
while incarcerated (not on death row) and is suspected in up to 18 murders,
about half of which he was never even prosecuted for (largely to his already
existent death sentence).
[...]
> And what is more, 6 of those 558 commutees were later proved to be
innocent.
>
> Another point to consider is that 79 of those 558, had been sentenced
> to death for crimes other than murder, 75 for rape, 4 for armed robbery.
>
> So, by abolishing the DP they saved the life of 79 non-murderers
One of the problems, since repaired, with pre-Furman laws, is that a death
sentence could be handed down for a charge other than murder. Since this
was corrected, any analysis that uses this as a basis is inherently flawed.
and 6
> innocent
> people, but lost 5 innocent people. On the whole, we gained more than we
> lost.
> I can live with that.
I think the actual numbers yield a greater loss of innocents from murderers
re-offending than from their exposure to the dp - would that change your
mind?
The current implementation remains flawed and must be used less often - far
less often. However, it is a false wisdom to believe that security can be
made perfect for determined sociopaths for decades on end and that that
death by long term incarceration is any better than death by injection. I
lose no sleep nor feel any guilt about the execution of serial killers. No
one else should either.
danh
news:kl7givko95m7hmmsd...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:03:52 -0400, "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com>
> wrote:
> >"FitzHerbert" <FitzHerb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:f85d58f0.0307...@posting.google.com...
> >> "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> >news:<bg8d14$htb$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>...
[...]
> >In that case, address these questions:
> >
> >Are there some prisoners sentenced to death who remain a continuing
danger
> >to guards and other inmates?
>
> >If the answer to the previous question is yes, then how would you propose
to
> >incarcerate them with regard to others' safety while ensuring their
> >constitutional rights? The dp is specifically countenanced in the U.S.
> >Constitution so your answer must necessarily reflect the preservation of
all
> >their rights, not some latter day human rights claim.
>
> What utter nonsense, Daniel
Translation - you don't have a response. You know full well that some
prisoners are a continuing danger to others and are so blinded by ideology
that you cannot admit there is no effective means of dealing with them that
doesn't violate their constitutional rights.
[...]
> You seem to be most proud of your constantly stated position whereby
> you attempt to back your opponent into a corner by pointing to the
> lacuna in the ideology of the principled abolitionist whereby they
> refuse to accept execution as appropriate to even the most dangerous
> offender.
Even you recognize the gap between your ideology and its consequences. What
makes you a boorish fool is your unwillingness to deal with the reality.
I am, quite frankly, sick and tired of reading your
> self-satisfied question
Who cares what you think. You don't matter.
[...]
There is simply
> no way to discern which offenders pose a real and continuing threat
> with any degree of accuracy sufficient to justify killing them without
> carrying out out needless, unjust, and above all, _unsafe_ sentencing.
> I thus reject the DP in all its forms.
Your inability to understand that a serial killer who has killed repeatedly,
vocalizes his intent to kill again and does while incarcerated does not mean
that everyone else is as stupid.
> >> And, as has been pointed out again and again, DP-free Europe has a
> >> lower murder-rate than DP-Loving USA.
> >
> >You wouldn't be so simplistic as to suggest that single difference is
> >responsible for the difference in murder rates, would you? If not, then
> >explain how merely eliminating the dp will lower the rate.
>
> You wouldn't be so naive as to suggest that the guns 'n' death culture
> of the US (contributed to by the DP) is not he main reason for your
> huge murder rate?
It may be, but the complexities of a society defy single digit
categorization. It was implied that it is solely the availability of the dp
that causes the higher murder rate. Prove it.
Peter Morris
YOU brought up those 558 prisonners, not me. You claimed that by not
executing those 558 the state has "blood on its hands" for 6 murders they
committed.
I simply point out that if those 558 people had been executed, the state
would
have had the blood of 79 non-murderers and 6 innocent people on its hands.
And that four of those 6 murder victims would still be dead anyway.
Which, in your opinion, is worse?
To me, it seems that even taking into account the highest estimate of
McDuff's
body count we saved the lives of more people that didn't deserve to die
than we lost.
One other thing, you claim that the problem of executing rapists
and armed robbers has been corrected post-Furman. But if it hadn't
been for Furman, and these 558 death sentences overturned, the
problem would still exist.
> and 6
> > innocent
> > people, but lost 5 innocent people. On the whole, we gained more than we
> > lost.
> > I can live with that.
>
> I think the actual numbers yield a greater loss of innocents from
murderers
> re-offending than from their exposure to the dp - would that change your
> mind?
No, not really. All human life is valuable to me, even murderers lives.
Your argument is based on the theory that if we kill 200 people we
might save the life of 1 person. I oppose this. And it wouldn't change
my mind if you proved that it was actually killing 100 to save 1, or 50
to save 1.
If every single execution saved at least one life, I would be more
inclined to favour it. Any idea of killing many to save a few is
unacceptable to me.
> The current implementation remains flawed and must be used less often -
far
> less often. However, it is a false wisdom to believe that security can be
> made perfect for determined sociopaths for decades on end and that that
> death by long term incarceration is any better than death by injection. I
> lose no sleep nor feel any guilt about the execution of serial killers.
No
> one else should either.
And I say that I do, and everyone else should too.
danh
[...]
> > I think the actual numbers yield a greater loss of innocents from
> murderers
> > re-offending than from their exposure to the dp - would that change your
> > mind?
>
> No, not really. All human life is valuable to me, even murderers lives.
> Your argument is based on the theory that if we kill 200 people we
> might save the life of 1 person.
Read for comprehension - this is _not_ my argument. Save your rhetorical
flourish for those who hold that view - I'll join you.
[...]
> > The current implementation remains flawed and must be used less often -
> far
> > less often. However, it is a false wisdom to believe that security can
be
> > made perfect for determined sociopaths for decades on end and that that
> > death by long term incarceration is any better than death by injection.
I
> > lose no sleep nor feel any guilt about the execution of serial killers.
> No
> > one else should either.
>
> And I say that I do, and everyone else should too.
To each his own. What value do the lives of serial killers have to society?
Peter Morris
> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> news:bgbkh7$8rf$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> > news:bgbd3q$iem$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
>
> [...]
>
> > > I think the actual numbers yield a greater loss of innocents from
> > murderers
> > > re-offending than from their exposure to the dp - would that change
your
> > > mind?
> >
> > No, not really. All human life is valuable to me, even murderers lives.
> > Your argument is based on the theory that if we kill 200 people we
> > might save the life of 1 person.
>
> Read for comprehension - this is _not_ my argument.
No? Lets review.
[quote - danh] For example, of the 558 death row inmates
freed from death row by Furman, several were responsible
for 8 (IIRC) in-prison murders. Explain why the state doesn't
have those new victims' blood on its hands.[/quote]
[quote - Peter] I believe it was 6 in prison, four prisonners
and two guards, and three outside prison [snip] And what is
more, 6 of those 558 commutees were later proved to be
innocent [/quote]
So, in fact those executions would have saved 9 people
but killed 6 innocents, i.e. it would have given a net gain
of 3 people.
Although I didn't mention it before- in this thread - there
were actually over 600 Furman comutees. The report
you are referring to has complete information on 558, and
incomplete information on another 70.
So, you are advocating killing 600 people to save 3.
Which is the same as killing 200 to save 1.
Then you argue about the number of victims, and say in effect
that maybe its actually killing 100 to save 1, or 50 to save 1,
and ask me whether that makes a difference. No it does not.
> Save your rhetorical
> flourish for those who hold that view - I'll join you.
>
> [...]
You have dodged my question. Let me rephrase.
Given all you know, or speculate, about the Furman
commuted murderers, would you execute them all,
accepting the deaths of 75 rapists, 4 armed robbers
and 6 innocent people as the price to pay for saving those
two prison guards, four murderers, and McDuff's victims?
Yes or no, you only have to say.
dirtdog
predictably beat his silly little chest and said not a great deal:
I do have a response, Daniel, and that is to state that your 'poser'
is utter nonsense.
If your decrepit 'constitution' is such that it allows the state to
execute innocent individuals, but does not allow the same people to be
kept securely (and perhaps you could point out precisely which part of
it does this rather than trying to look knowledgeable by producing a
link) then I submit the proposition that it is out-of-date, pointless
and worthless. In the re-jig of the CJS that the US so sorely needs,
it should be discarded.
>
>[...]
>
>> You seem to be most proud of your constantly stated position whereby
>> you attempt to back your opponent into a corner by pointing to the
>> lacuna in the ideology of the principled abolitionist whereby they
>> refuse to accept execution as appropriate to even the most dangerous
>> offender.
>
>Even you recognize the gap between your ideology and its consequences. What
>makes you a boorish fool is your unwillingness to deal with the reality.
Excellent response, Daniel. Truly first class.
My position has absolutely _everything_ to do with reality. I realise
that it is impossible to create a system which is perfect enough to
justify the state carrying out deity-like functions - such as ending a
human life, and I thus curb my basic desire for irreversible revenge
in the knowledge that I _may_ be wrong.
Evidently you are not so mature, nor highly developed. You do a lot of
hand waving about the fact that the DP should be reserved for the
'worst' offenders. What you consistently _fail_ to do is submit any
real workable system to ensure that _only_ those 'worst' offenders are
executed.
The only one failing to address reality, Danny-Boy, is yourself.
>
> I am, quite frankly, sick and tired of reading your
>> self-satisfied question
>
>Who cares what you think. You don't matter.
Boo hoo.
<Daniel snipping what he couldn't deal with snipped>
>There is simply
>> no way to discern which offenders pose a real and continuing threat
>> with any degree of accuracy sufficient to justify killing them without
>> carrying out out needless, unjust, and above all, _unsafe_ sentencing.
>> I thus reject the DP in all its forms.
>
>Your inability to understand that a serial killer who has killed repeatedly,
>vocalizes his intent to kill again and does while incarcerated does not mean
>that everyone else is as stupid.
Perhaps you could repeat that, Daniel, this time in coherent English?
Perhaps this is your pragmatic solution. You seem to suggest that
those who declare that they will kill again should be executed. Would
you not agree that the term 'insane' may be a more apt description of
such people, no matter how repulsive you find them? In civilised
countries, the insane are removed from society and kept away if they
remain a threat. They are not punished.
One day the US will catch up.
>> >> And, as has been pointed out again and again, DP-free Europe has a
>> >> lower murder-rate than DP-Loving USA.
>> >
>> >You wouldn't be so simplistic as to suggest that single difference is
>> >responsible for the difference in murder rates, would you? If not, then
>> >explain how merely eliminating the dp will lower the rate.
>>
>> You wouldn't be so naive as to suggest that the guns 'n' death culture
>> of the US (contributed to by the DP) is not he main reason for your
>> huge murder rate?
>
>It may be, but the complexities of a society defy single digit
>categorization. It was implied that it is solely the availability of the dp
>that causes the higher murder rate. Prove it.
Hang on, Daniel. Your interpretation of what Neville said (which
appears incorrect, BTW) is that the DP is the sole reason for the US'
murder rates, and you now claim it falls for me to 'prove it'?
'Professional writer' my arse. I should be surprised if you even hold
a degree.
Neville of course implied no such thing. He stated that the DP may
well be linked to the high rates of murder in the US. A contributing
factor. He is most likely to be correct, as you admit yourself. Do
cease ageeing whilst purporting to disagree - it's sooooo 'Kevin'
<cue Daniel claiming to be 'bored'...>
w00f
dirtdog
<no...@m.please> wrote:
>
>"danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
>news:bgbl6o$tvq$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
>> "Beardy Pete" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
>> news:bgbkh7$8rf$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>> > "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
>> > news:bgbd3q$iem$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > > I think the actual numbers yield a greater loss of innocents from
>> > murderers
>> > > re-offending than from their exposure to the dp - would that change
>your
>> > > mind?
>> >
>> > No, not really. All human life is valuable to me, even murderers lives.
>> > Your argument is based on the theory that if we kill 200 people we
>> > might save the life of 1 person.
>>
>> Read for comprehension - this is _not_ my argument.
>
>No? Lets review.
<snip list of Daniel dropping himself in it>
Quite right, Beardy. Daniel has a wonderful habit of saying gormless
things, then denying he said them and accusing others of having
'comprehension problems'.
Ask him to compare the (illegal) invasion of Iraq with the (legal)
defence of the Falklands, for instance...
w00f
A Planet Visitor
>
>"danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
>news:bg9199$cec$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
>
>> What responsibility does the state bear for one of their charges killing
>> another inmate or a guard? For example, of the 558 death row inmates
>> freed
>> from death row by Furman, several were responsible for 8 (IIRC) in-prison
>> murders. Explain why the state doesn't have those new victims' blood on
>> its hands.
>
>I believe it was 6 in prison, four prisonners and two guards, and three
>outside prison. It also is my understanding that those four prisonners
>were themselves former death-row residents.
Your 'understanding' has always been flawed. You simply invented that
'understanding.' Those four prisoners murdered by the Furman-commuted
murderers, were not among the Furman-commuted group of 558 DR
inmates commuted under Furman. Clearly, if they had been it would have
been noted as a part of the study, which reported that of the total of 558,
243 had been released to society, and 315 had not been released. Of
those 315 not released, 39 died and 3 escaped and had not been recaptured.
The study expressly used the word 'died,' presuming under causes other than
being murdered. If they had been murdered by another Furman-commuted
prisoner, it would certainly have been noted in the study. While the murderers
WERE all convicted murderers, and not Furman-commuted rapists as I believe
you have implied before.
Further, the "three" outside prison is a gross understatement, and you are
well aware of that fact. Given that one of the released murderers was the
infamous McDuff. And other Furman-commuted murderers committed
new murders after the conclusion of the study, or were ignored in that
study...notably Robert Lee Massie -- see
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/massie703.htm
The very existence of Robert Lee Massie places the Furman-commuted
study in a light which demonstrates an obvious bias against the DP.
But, of course, given that when I posted the number of murders committed
by murderers in prisons, you remarked smugly -- "Was even one sigle one
of the victims wrongly convicted? Because if not, it has no relevence whatsoever..."
it is obvious that criminals murdered in prison have no relevance to you. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a55to2%24eoo%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
I defy you to justify your words that those not wrongly convicted, but murdered
in prison, have"'no relevence whatsoever." You have never been able to do so.
In point of fact, you continue to dismiss those murders as 'irrelevant,' as you
do in your present post. Thus, it is YOU who would argue that some prisoners
who are not wrongly convicted, actually deserve to be murdered. I will never
accept any statement that implies ANYONE, regardless of his prior acts, including
Jeffrey Daumer, deserved to be murdered. The very idea is repulsive to me,
but seems quite acceptable to you, if a few lives of murderers can be 'saved'
from execution by ignoring those murders that occur in prison.
> Therefore, if the executions
>had proceeded they would have died anyway.
>
Liar... liar... pants on fire!!! None of those murder victims would have been
executed, since none of them were in the group of Furman-commuted prisoners.
In any case, murder by an individual and legal execution by the State are two
totally different concepts. The only thing in common is the word 'homicide.'
If we presume they are the same... we are attempting to legalize the individual act
of murder.
>PV usually twists my words beyond recognition at this point, claiming that
>I agree with his statement that they 'deservesd to be murdered' I do no
>such thing. I just point out that applying the DP would NOT have saved their
>lives.
>
Of course you claimed such... you rather stated that EVERY murder committed
in prison of someone NOT wrong convicted, has "no relevence whatsoever."
Nor have I EVER said ANYONE 'deserved to be murdered.' Those are YOUR
words, sport... and they must taste bitter each time I remind you of them. I
have ALWAYS said, in a great number of posts, that "no one deserves to be
murdered."
>
>And what is more, 6 of those 558 commutees were later proved to be innocent.
>
Actually, proof is a very elusive quality... they were found 'not guilty' lacking
'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' that they were guilty. Perhaps you would
provide the names of those 'six,' since I believe it was 'four' previously, and
seems to rise each time you post to this subject. Quoting from the study
itself --- "However, four inmates on death row at the time of Furman were
'innocent' (sic) according to a study by Bedau and Radelet"
>Another point to consider is that 79 of those 558, had been sentenced
>to death for crimes other than murder, 75 for rape, 4 for armed robbery.
None of whom murdered after being commuted. No one presumes that retentionists
support the DP for those convicted of rape or armed robbery as a matter of their
support for the DP (I certainly don't). Thus this remains simply another of your
strawman arguments. I consider every execution pre-Furman to be 'irrelevant'
to the present day application of the DP. When we start considering events which no
longer have applicability to the present day, then of course, we open a Pandora's
box of murders committed under presumed State sanctions in Europe (which were
of course ILLEGAL), in the recent past. In fact, some that exist to this day in
Europe... see --
http://www.rr.com/v5/1/news/frame/0,2252,~ap~1~9000_465422,00.html
Murders of innocents in monstrous number...and you presume to question the
possible execution of some small number of proven murderers in the U.S. DP.
Conditions pre-Furman regarding the present DP are no longer valid. In point of fact,
the DP is again in place and no one has been executed for any crime but capital
murder since being reinstated. Nor will they conceivably be, given the ruling in
Coker v. Georgia, decided by the SCOTUS on June 29, 1977.
>So, by abolishing the DP they saved the life of 79 non-murderers and 6
>innocent
>people, but lost 5 innocent people. On the whole, we gained more than we
>lost. I can live with that.
Unfortunately, those who were murdered by those commuted under Furman,
are unable to 'live with that.' But then... you've stated that they have "no
relevence whatsoever." Nor is there any proof whatsoever that due process
would not have 'saved' the same number of lives that Furman did, since none
of those later having their convictions overturned were 'actually' executed.
PV
A Planet Visitor
>
>"danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
>news:bgbd3q$iem$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
>> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
>> news:bg9n7u$j7$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>> > "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
>> > news:bg9199$cec$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
<clipped>
>No, not really. All human life is valuable to me, even murderers lives.
A comment from you that requires the use of a response that I have
committed myself to hardly ever using any more, now finds its way to
being essential in response to your words --- ROTFLMAO.
You are one of the most uncaring of all humans, in respect to the
lives of murderers who are murdered in prison. In fact, you discount
them totally in your examination of those criminals murdered by
Furman-commuted murderers. First, by implying that the victims
were actually Furman-commuted murderers themselves (they were
not). And then by discounting their murders with the implication
that they are somehow 'different humans' in respect to them being
murdered, because they were murderers (they were not - they
were humans like anyone else - and NO ONE deserves to be
murdered).
.
Further, your own words from the past, demonstrate that you care
NOTHING for criminals murdered in prison. You have said --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other
criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
Obviously, giving much greater weight to saving murderers than 'worrying'
about their victims in prison. And then your other words. When I posted
the number of murders committed by murderers in prisons, you remarked
uncaringly -- "Was even one sigle one of the victims wrongly convicted?
Because if not, it has no relevence whatsoever." Obviously, you feel that
criminals murdered in prison have no relevance to you -- See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a55to2%24eoo%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
And then we have your other words -- "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." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=39B0FD46.D8441BD3%40lineone.net
Which apparently means that if they 'deserve' to be killed, and they are
murdered in prison, that's okay with you... as long as the State doesn't
execute their murderers.
<rest of typical pathetic drooling from Peter clipped>
PV
Earl Evleth
<da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>
> This does leave the 2 guards who were killed. Their lives count too.
I sometimes take a statistical view. I once looked into death rates of
guards and they are not exceptionally high. The most dangerous
profession in the US is being a taxi driver. If a guard gets killed
that makes the news. Taxi drivers, that is another thing.
> McDuff is was convicted in numerous murders, he was convicted of a felony
> while incarcerated (not on death row) and is suspected in up to 18 murders,
> about half of which he was never even prosecuted for (largely to his already
> existent death sentence).
His release was accidental, not a good example of the "average". His
first set of murders, three I believe included shoving a broomstick
down the rape victim's throat, were so cruel as to demonstrate
a psychopathic condition. Texas at the time was under Federal court
order to do something about prison overcrowding so there was a rush
to release older prisoners.
> One of the problems, since repaired, with pre-Furman laws, is that a death
> sentence could be handed down for a charge other than murder.
Like rape, but that DP was almost universally used in the south
and was obviously racist in application. The Supreme court knocked
it out a few years after the new DP was instituted.
Otherwise, the spectrum of murderers on death row before and after Furman
are probably much different. I have seen no study on that but the DP were
handed down in "standard" wife murder cases in the pre-Furman days. Now
other felonies must be committed. Or other more than "just" murder
acts (torture etc) so that the heinous label could be attached.
Even so a portion of the murderers on death row are not particularly cruel
murderers. The man we have helped for years shot a fence with whom
he was negotiating the sale of a stolen typewriter (n-years ago!).
In leaving he took the fenceąs money that was being disputed over.
So that was murder + theft = DP. It was not premeditated.
He (Richard) was offered a plea bargain sentence, which he thought
was too long to opted for a trial (he thought he`d get 10 years served
instead of the 40 offered).
He guessed wrong and got death. There are a lot of market robbery
+ murder cases on death row. Rarely will one run into a McDuff or Bundy.
So even on current death rows there are a spectrum of murderers. Karla
Faye Tucker was probably a releasable prisoner, she was executed
instead. Knowing Richard over a number of years, I think he is
releasable, 55 with heart problems, his main problem is being
held in prison for 20 years, more recently under severe supermax
conditions. Those alone will make sane men crazy, those conditions
are pathogenic. Even an person originally innocent of murder would
become murderous under those conditions.
Since only a couple of percent of all murderers end up on death row, one
should also pay attention to the majority of the murderers, they are
released. What are their recidivism rates? The most recent study shows
that percentagewise, released car thieves are more likely to commit murder
than released murderers. Indeed, a statistical case can be made to execute
all prisoners, regardless of crime. This would prevent a lot of new murders
with the postivie fall out of less crime. We would, however,
be executing preemptively and executing many more people who
will not murder in the future than those who will. The same was true
in the Furman statistical example. Nearly all the released murderers
did not murder again. In executing all, we are practicing łoverkill˛.
But I am curious, how much experience the people on this group have had
with murderers or murder? Did you know a murdered person? Have you
or did you know a murderer? Also, have you been threatened by an armed
person?
Are we, here, a body of theoreticians or speaking from experience?
Earl
Earl
Jigsaw1695
> On 31/07/03 17:38, in article bgbd3q$iem$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com,
"danh"
> <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>
<<<SNIPPED>>
> He guessed wrong and got death. There are a lot of market robbery
> + murder cases on death row. Rarely will one run into a McDuff or Bundy.
> So even on current death rows there are a spectrum of murderers. Karla
> Faye Tucker was probably a releasable prisoner, she was executed
> instead. Knowing Richard over a number of years, I think he is
> releasable, 55 with heart problems, his main problem is being
> held in prison for 20 years, more recently under severe supermax
> conditions. Those alone will make sane men crazy, those conditions
> are pathogenic. Even an person originally innocent of murder would
> become murderous under those conditions.
==================================================================
Earl, are you saying that he is in a Supermax prison. If he is, prisoners
dont just get put in supermax...they earn their
way in. So if he in a supermax, what did he do to get there? Attack a guard?
Another prisoner? Kill someone?
===========================================================================
>
> Since only a couple of percent of all murderers end up on death row, one
> should also pay attention to the majority of the murderers, they are
> released. What are their recidivism rates? The most recent study shows
> that percentagewise, released car thieves are more likely to commit murder
> than released murderers. Indeed, a statistical case can be made to
execute
> all prisoners, regardless of crime. This would prevent a lot of new
murders
> with the postivie fall out of less crime. We would, however,
> be executing preemptively and executing many more people who
> will not murder in the future than those who will. The same was true
> in the Furman statistical example. Nearly all the released murderers
> did not murder again. In executing all, we are practicing łoverkill˛.
>
=================================================================
As I have stated several times, not all murders deserve the DP. The ones who
are sentenced to
that punishment, IMO, got it because of the nature of the crime(s) they had
committed.
Some of the most personable people I have met were murderers. The majority
of them would "undo" the crime if
the could, and are genuinely remorseful for what they have done. I have also
met a few very personable killers who deserved the DP. They had a good sense
of humor, smiled a lot, and had good entertainment vaule. their only flaw
was that they
enjoyed killing people. Most of them were classified as psychopathic in
nature. Others were no sociable at anytime. The did not have mood swings
like their "warmer" breathern. They were no more evil then the smiley
killer, they just presented themselves differently.
> But I am curious, how much experience the people on this group have had
> with murderers or murder? Did you know a murdered person? Have you
> or did you know a murderer? Also, have you been threatened by an armed
> person?
>
> Are we, here, a body of theoreticians or speaking from experience?
>
> Earl
======
As mentioned earlier, I a retired law enforcement officer. I have come in
contact with several killers, both of the emotional and non-emotional
(NEO). I knew two murder victims personally, both of them being fellow LEOs.
As for being threatened by an armed person, I would say there were at least
two occasions where a serious situation existed. My heart rate increased
considerably as did my own personal pucker factor. One guy was armed with a
knife, the other with a gun. Both ended with no serious injury other than
some bruises and pain to the bad guys. One came very very close to being
shot. The hammer was back, and the trigger slack taken up. Fortunately, he
blinked first.
And I speak both from experience and theory in this matter. My stand in
support of the death penalty is also based on personal experience of being
involved with murderers, up front and personal.
I believe there is at least one regular member of this NG who has come in
contact with murderers, and possibly even victims, though most LEO do not
ever meet the victim before the crime is committed. I also would guess that
there are two others who have been contributors to this NG who have been
active participants on homicide investigations.
There are also several theoreticians on the NG. The majority of them speak
from the heartfelt belief that all murders can be rehabilitated. I will
disagree with them on this count by saying the majority of murderers do not
really need rehabilitative influence as they are not "evil" people to begin
with, and will probably self-rehabilitate within the limits of their own
survivability while in prison.
Some need guidance and psychological assistance. There does not seem to be
any in-depth examnination into the backgrounds of the emotional offenders
since they do not generally receive the death penalty. From my experience in
brief interviews about their early life there is mixed historical bag of
child abuse, drugs or alcohol within the family while others had a
relatively happy childhood with no life altering traumatic experiences.
Almost to the man, the non-emotional offender, the ones sentenced to the DP,
have had a history of being the victims of child abuse as well as feeling
the influential effects of the use of alcohol and drugs by their role models
and caregivers. Most of them cannot tolerate frustration well. They deal
with failure thru anger and violence. The emotion of the anger seems to
elevate them (in their minds) above ordinary men. IMO the anger causes a
chemical reaction in their body that triggers the act of violence. (A very
simple unscientific explanation. Keep in mind that depression is caused by
a chemical inbalance the accompaning periods of elation). The violence gives
them a sense of empowerment thru domination, thru the feeling of being the
giver of death of the giver of life that they would not have otherwise. The
all seem to have very poor relations with the opposite sex, cannot hold a
job for any length of time, nor can they deal with success. They react in an
immature manner to stressful situation. They are in effect, agents for their
own destruction
The majority of them, if not all, have been though the system starting as a
juvenile. Rehabilitation efforts were made in various institutions as they
worked their way up the crime ladder. In a way, the emotional offender is
like the repeat child sex offender. He cannot be rehabilitated. He wanderers
in and out of the criminal justice system until he commits a crime that
warrants the death penalty because of the affront to the dignity of the
victim and the community.
Their has always been conflict between the adacemic and the agent in the
field. Almost all social service academic truely feel that there is good in
everyone and that everyone can be redeemed. The field agent sees the results
of the academics failure, and places caustation at their feet. They are more
of a realist that the scholors and feel they are often more wrong than
right. While academic study does eventually bear fruit, it has to be field
tested and fine tuned. And therein lies the battleground between the two
factions.
Jigsaw
>
Earl Evleth
HQpWa.29846$Mc.23...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net, "Jigsaw1695"
<jigsa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Earl, are you saying that he is in a Supermax prison. If he is, prisoners
> dont just get put in supermax...they earn their
> way in. So if he in a supermax, what did he do to get there? Attack a guard?
> Another prisoner? Kill someone?
No, you have it completely wrong.
Death row Arizona went completely to "supermax" in its most extreme form
in the 1990s. ALL DEATH ROW PRISONERS ARE IN A SINGLE SUPERMAX FACILITY
AT FLORENCE ARIZONA.
In ONLY that sense they earned there way in.
He committed no additional crimes during his 20 years of incarceration.
The Arizona decision to do supermax for ALL death row inmates was
mostly political, there was a lot of pandering going on by elected
officials at the time.
Remember you have 50 states plus Federal facilities, so you have a
spectrum of reasons for being in supermax and even a variety of
environments. Some drug king pins are in Federal Supermax
even though they have committed no violent crimes in prison.
The Arizona supermax has the toughest conditions I know of.
1) Individual cells which have no windows from which either the
landscape or sky can be seen, just an opposite wall.
2) No prisoner can leave the cell until cuffed and chained up.
The doors have spaces in which you place your hands behind your
back for cuffing up. Same for leg chains.
3) prisoners are in their cells 23 hours a day, they can exit
changed, to go into an "exercise room" which has no facilities,
just a larger space to walk around in. It is not an exterior
yard but a room. Same procedure for showers. Richard does not
to the exercise facility, nothing to do there.
4) No typewriters are allowed in the cell. Pens are the interiors
of the Bics, so that one can not use the pen for a weapon
(jabbing out the eye of a guard). The innate may buy a special
black and white TV, which is in a transparent plastic case.
The cells are designed to minimize to the maximum any
weapon manufacturing. Frequent searches. Punishments
are difficult, but cutting the electricity off is the common
one.
5) The facility is not air conditioned. Temperatures in
nearby Phoenix hit 117 recently.
6) The visiting room is air conditioned, but not on the prisoners
side of the glass panel. The visitors can buy candy and soft
drinks for their own consumption, the prisoners can not share
with these items. On our visits we refused to be so cruel
as to eat and drink before him. It is hard to carry on a conversation,
the sound comes around the glass partition through little holes.
7) The prisoners can not see one another, nor do they ever meet
one another in an open facility. They can shout back and forth
however.
8) When food is delivered, the inmate has to stand at the back
of the cell. Or they have to stand back if so ordered.
9) Any disobeying of orders will result in suited up guards
coming in to "handle the situation" if it goes beyond
the pepper spray level.
In fact, on inmate died on the toilet, he was just sitting there
and did not respond to any of the guards commands. So his corpse
was subjected to pepper spray and finally a suited up group of
suited guards who rushed him.
He made no attempt to resist. He was not charged with any
infraction.
They buried him.
I think that is all, you can consider yourself informed.
Earl
Cerberus
"Jigsaw1695" <jigsa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:HQpWa.29846$Mc.23...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
:
: "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
I'm warning you mate. If our Jiggy is not released , unharmed and in good
health by midnight, your arse is grass.
Kidnapping prick
--
WooF w00f WooF
----== Posted via Usenet.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.Usenet.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
danh
"danh"
> <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
> >
> > This does leave the 2 guards who were killed. Their lives count too.
>
> I sometimes take a statistical view. I once looked into death rates of
> guards and they are not exceptionally high. The most dangerous
> profession in the US is being a taxi driver. If a guard gets killed
> that makes the news. Taxi drivers, that is another thing.
While true, this isn't especially important. Dead is dead. It would be
nice if all parties to this debate would appreciate equally the deaths of
victims and murderers.
> > McDuff is was convicted in numerous murders, he was convicted of a
felony
> > while incarcerated (not on death row) and is suspected in up to 18
murders,
> > about half of which he was never even prosecuted for (largely to his
already
> > existent death sentence).
>
> His release was accidental, not a good example of the "average". His
> first set of murders, three I believe included shoving a broomstick
> down the rape victim's throat, were so cruel as to demonstrate
> a psychopathic condition. Texas at the time was under Federal court
> order to do something about prison overcrowding so there was a rush
> to release older prisoners.
There was nothing accidental about McDuff's release - it was done because of
overcrowding and despite his having been convicted of a felony while in
prison. He was not representative of those on death row, but he was a fair
example of who the dp should be intended for and why it's needed.
> > One of the problems, since repaired, with pre-Furman laws, is that a
death
> > sentence could be handed down for a charge other than murder.
>
> Like rape, but that DP was almost universally used in the south
> and was obviously racist in application. The Supreme court knocked
> it out a few years after the new DP was instituted.
>
> Otherwise, the spectrum of murderers on death row before and after Furman
> are probably much different. I have seen no study on that but the DP were
> handed down in "standard" wife murder cases in the pre-Furman days. Now
> other felonies must be committed. Or other more than "just" murder
> acts (torture etc) so that the heinous label could be attached.
You've articulated well why laws should be written so as to preclude
subjective judgements about heinousness. By restricting the dp to those
who've killed repeatedly, we obtain two things: (a) if guilt is proven,
there is no argument that it was accidental or happenstance and (b) there is
objective evidence of heinousness. Mitigation must also be considered
because there are those who are retarded, mentally ill or very young, but by
restricting the dp to those cases that can be objectively quantified, we
take out of the equation many factors such as political benefit to
prosecutors and "community outrage" that so often drive capital
prosecutions.
[...]
> Rarely will one run into a McDuff or Bundy.
Right - and when we do, there is really no safety or security.
[...]
> Since only a couple of percent of all murderers end up on death row, one
> should also pay attention to the majority of the murderers, they are
> released. What are their recidivism rates? The most recent study shows
> that percentagewise, released car thieves are more likely to commit murder
> than released murderers.
Do you have a cite? The only study I'm aware of that explicitly tracked
murder recidivism is about 20 years old and found that while murder is the
least repeated crime, convicted murderers murdered anew about 4 times as
frequently as any other group.
I found a study published in 2000
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/rpr94.txt) and it does not support
your claim that "released car thieves are more likely to commit murder than
released murderers". This study tracked 272,111 releasees in 15 states,
which represented about 2/3 of those released from prisons. Within 3 years,
183,675 have been returned to prison including charges of 2900 new
homicides. About 22.5% of the releasees were incarcerated for violent
crimes. Let's assume less than a third of these were murderers - 7%. If
you have a better number suggest it. Let's do some simple analysis:
2900 / 272111 = 0.01 = 1%
0.01 * .07 = 0.00075
which is an order of magnitude higher than the general population.
"Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%),
burglars (74.0%),
larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for
possessing or selling stolen
property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling
illegal weapons (70.2%)."
None of this is very precise, but I think it generally shows that car
thieves are not the most likely to murder.
Indeed, a statistical case can be made to execute
> all prisoners, regardless of crime.
The only ones trying to suggest this are the complete abolitionists. I know
of no one else advocating this.
[...]
> But I am curious, how much experience the people on this group have had
> with murderers or murder? Did you know a murdered person? Have you
> or did you know a murderer? Also, have you been threatened by an armed
> person?
I've had a cousin murdered. I have known dozens of murderers through my
experience teaching in several prisons and working with various civil
liberties groups. I have been assaulted by one man for failing him in a
course, and yes, he was a convicted murderer. I also, coincidentally, was
in a bank when it was robbed at gunpoint, though he was didn't threaten
anyone besides the teller. (Amusingly, he left his wallet on the counter
and the police were waiting for him when he arrived home - true!) I have
also spent years involved with a number of individuals trying to obtain
their release. In all that time, I have known only one who did not
re-offend, a young man convicted of armed robbery (to support a drug habit)
when he was 17 and incarcerated for 10 years. During that time, he obtained
his GED, a college degree and now has a web design business. That one
success has made it worthwhile, but I am under no illusions about the
revolving door.
> Are we, here, a body of theoreticians or speaking from experience?
I suspect the most vigorous posters here have the least experience. I'd
even posit that the more obnoxious the poster, the less experienced they
are.
danh
[...]
> So, you are advocating killing 600 people to save 3.
> Which is the same as killing 200 to save 1.
Please be better informed about my position if you plan to make claims about
it. You've posted nonsense.
[...]
> Given all you know, or speculate, about the Furman
> commuted murderers, would you execute them all,
> accepting the deaths of 75 rapists, 4 armed robbers
> and 6 innocent people as the price to pay for saving those
> two prison guards, four murderers, and McDuff's victims?
>
> Yes or no, you only have to say.
No, I wouldn't. I would have executed some very few. Among the more
infamous were McDuff and Speck (convicted of killing 8 nurses in Chicago).
Despite your fervent attempts, it isn't an all or nothing proposition.
[...]
> > What value do the lives of serial killers have to society?
I gave you the courtesy of a direct reply. Would you do the same?
Earl Evleth
<da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
> Do you have a cite? The only study I'm aware of that explicitly tracked
> murder recidivism is about 20 years old and found that while murder is the
> least repeated crime, convicted murderers murdered anew about 4 times as
> frequently as any other group.
>
> I found a study published in 2000
> (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/rpr94.txt) and it does not supportTa
> homicides. About 22.5% of the releasees were incarcerated for violent
> crimes. Let's assume less than a third of these were murderers - 7%. If
> you have a better number suggest it. Let's do some simple analysis:
> 2900 / 272111 = 0.01 = 1%
> 0.01 * .07 = 0.00075
> which is an order of magnitude higher than the general population.
>
> "Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%),
> burglars (74.0%),
> larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for
> possessing or selling stolen
> property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling
> illegal weapons (70.2%)."
>
> None of this is very precise, but I think it generally shows that car
> thieves are not the most likely to murder.
You have the right study, I worked off the full pdf files
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
the prior one being
and http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf
I did not look at the text file you cited. The 94 study
cover the three years following
Table 10 of that study shows what released prisoners in
each crime category did, percentage wise and in numbers
on release. Over 4400 murderers were release, and
1.2% of them committed murder again. That is about
53 new murders. 2.4% of the released car thieves committed committed
murder. Since there were more of them released, 9500 they committed more
murders, around 228. They had twice the murder rate and about twice
as many of them. Similarly, althought burglars commit murder
at a low rate the over 40,000 of them released committed 287 new
murders.
The figures for other crime groups also exist and I once calculated
from those that if one summed up the new murders, something like
95% were committed by ex-cons who had not murdered before.
For me table 10 contains the critical information.
Table 9 shows the over recidivism rate but does not tell you
what they were sent back for.
There is various ways one can work this data, I suppose.
If you compare it with the 83 release group there are changes
and PV and I kicked this around for a while in a series of
exchanges one can find on Google Groups.
Earl
John Rennie
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
>
> "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> news:bgbl6o$tvq$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> > "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> > news:bgbkh7$8rf$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > > "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bgbd3q$iem$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > I think the actual numbers yield a greater loss of innocents from
> > > murderers
> > > > re-offending than from their exposure to the dp - would that change
> your
> > > > mind?
> > >
> > > No, not really. All human life is valuable to me, even murderers
lives.
> > > Your argument is based on the theory that if we kill 200 people we
> > > might save the life of 1 person.
May I ask you, Peter, and, if he is interested, Mr D, just how far your
principals regarding the value of all human life including that of proven
murderers extends? I'll pose a ridiculously contrived situation: a man
who has murdered previously holds a hostage which he threatens to kill
unless his demands which includes escape are met. You, Peter or Mr
D, have the ability to kill the murderer. Do you so kill or do you meet
his demands? There's no halfway house. If you don't kill and you don't
meet his demands he will kill the hostage and then kill himself.
As a pragmatic abolitionist I would have no hesitation in killing the
hostage taker/murderer. What say you?
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:g0ojiv8feptpleidp...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:44:12 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> >news:bgbd3q$iem$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> >> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> >> news:bg9n7u$j7$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> >> > "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:bg9199$cec$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
>
> <clipped>
>
> >No, not really. All human life is valuable to me, even murderers lives.
>
> A comment from you that requires the use of a response that I have
> committed myself to hardly ever using any more, now finds its way to
> being essential in response to your words --- ROTFLMAO.
Ah here we go, Peeves' usual claim that
1) HIS words mean 'murderers deserve to be murdered
2) He never actually meant them
3) But I agree with them
4) He always meant what I said, when I claimed
that everyone should be protected, not just 'innocents'
5) He alwatys meant that, even whenb he said that o9nly
innocents should be protected from murder, and murderers
aren't innocent.
Give it up, Peeves, nobody believes you.
Peter Morris
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:z8wWa.1324$kv.6...@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
Yes I would, John. There is a big difference between the two situations.
In the case you mention, the man is directly and immediately threatening
the life of his hostage, you can be reasonably sure that killing him will
save at least one life.
In the DP, its a matter of killing somebody because of a hypothetical
possibility that at some time in the future there is a chance that he might
possiblly kill again.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 00:18:10 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> >news:bg9199$cec$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> >
> >> What responsibility does the state bear for one of their charges
killing
> >> another inmate or a guard? For example, of the 558 death row inmates
> >> freed
> >> from death row by Furman, several were responsible for 8 (IIRC)
in-prison
> >> murders. Explain why the state doesn't have those new victims' blood
on
> >> its hands.
> >
> >I believe it was 6 in prison, four prisonners and two guards, and three
> >outside prison. It also is my understanding that those four prisonners
> >were themselves former death-row residents.
>
> Your 'understanding' has always been flawed. You simply invented that
> 'understanding.' Those four prisoners murdered by the Furman-commuted
> murderers, were not among the Furman-commuted group of 558 DR
> inmates commuted under Furman.
A claim that you have always been anxious to emphasize.
Why? Because by denying that fact that they were criminals you
make them more deserving of being saved.
All the time this has been the way, your opinion that murderers don't
'deserve' to be protected from murder.
The fact that I expose your lies, and show that those four victims ARE
criminals, while you tried to claim they were not, does not indicate
agreement with your moral principles. NOBODY deserves to be
murdered, Peeves.
The fact that you ate still denying that these four were muderers is
proof that you think they deserved to be murdered. I despise you for
it.
Earl Evleth
<da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:BB4FDB1D.F6FA%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>> On 31/07/03 17:38, in article bgbd3q$iem$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com,
> "danh"
> I've had a cousin murdered. I have known dozens of murderers through my
> experience teaching in several prisons and working with various civil
> liberties groups. I have been assaulted by one man for failing him in a
> course, and yes, he was a convicted murderer. I also, coincidentally, was
> in a bank when it was robbed at gunpoint, though he was didn't threaten
> anyone besides the teller. (Amusingly, he left his wallet on the counter
> and the police were waiting for him when he arrived home - true!)
The one bank robber we know in French prison served his time, got out
and promptly try to rob another bank. He did not realize that while
in prison that installed double doors had been installed in banks, with a
alcove in between. On his way out the bank clerk did not push the release
button for the second door, trapping the thief in the alcove.
The glass was bullet proof and his attempts to shot his way out resulted
in bullets flying around inside the alcove.
He was arrested and sent back. He has since, after several years, agreed
to work in the construction for his brother in law. I have heard
that the average inmate has an IQ of 90, this was certainly the truth
in this case.
> I have > also spent years involved with a number of individuals trying to
> obtain their release. In all that time, I have known only one who did not
> re-offend, a young man convicted of armed robbery (to support a drug habit)
> when he was 17 and incarcerated for 10 years. During that time, he obtained
> his GED, a college degree and now has a web design business. That one
> success has made it worthwhile, but I am under no illusions about the
> revolving door.
>
>> Are we, here, a body of theoreticians or speaking from experience?
>
> I suspect the most vigorous posters here have the least experience. I'd
> even posit that the more obnoxious the poster, the less experienced they
> are.
You can share some of your stories with us if they make a point, as you just
did. thanks
Earl
Peter Morris
> Do you have a cite? The only study I'm aware of that explicitly tracked
> murder recidivism is about 20 years old and found that while murder is the
> least repeated crime, convicted murderers murdered anew about 4 times as
> frequently as any other group.
>
> I found a study published in 2000
> (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/rpr94.txt) and it does not support
> your claim that "released car thieves are more likely to commit murder
than
> released murderers".
Look at the PDF version of the report,
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
look at table 10.
released from homicide conviction, rearrested for homicide - 1.2%
released from motor vehicle theft conviction, rearrested for homicide - 2.4%
> This study tracked 272,111 releasees in 15 states,
> which represented about 2/3 of those released from prisons. Within 3
years,
> 183,675 have been returned to prison including charges of 2900 new
> homicides. About 22.5% of the releasees were incarcerated for violent
> crimes. Let's assume less than a third of these were murderers - 7%. If
> you have a better number suggest it.
see table 9 - the actual figure is 1.7%
> Let's do some simple analysis:
> 2900 / 272111 = 0.01 = 1%
> 0.01 * .07 = 0.00075
> which is an order of magnitude higher than the general population.
>
> "Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%),
> burglars (74.0%),
> larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for
> possessing or selling stolen
> property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling
> illegal weapons (70.2%)."
"Released prisoners with the lowest rearrest
rates were those in prison for homicide (40.7%),
rape (46.0%), other sexual assault (41.4%), and
driving under the influence (51.5%)."
That is, of course, rearrested for ANY crime, it includes murderers
rearrested
for shoplifting, for example.
> None of this is very precise, but I think it generally shows that car
> thieves are not the most likely to murder.
Actually, according to the report, they are the most likely to be
ARRESTED for murder, which isn't the same thing.
dirtdog
<no...@m.please> wrote:
>5) He alwatys meant that, even whenb he said that o9nly
Fuck me, Beardy. Have you been on the bitter again?
w00f
John Rennie
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
Agreed, Peter. I shall have to think up a more realistic problem which
stretches your belief in the sanctity of life to its limits. I come back
in a year or two :-)
Matti Kaikkonen
> "FitzHerbert" <FitzHerb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f85d58f0.0307...@posting.google.com...
> > And, as has been pointed out again and again, DP-free Europe has a
> > lower murder-rate than DP-Loving USA.
> Wow!! All the US has to do is eliminate the DP and the murder rate will
> fall.
Or it is a matter of attitude. Both murderers and DP proponents see
premeditated killing of humans as solution (or part of it) of their own or
public problems. One could thus make a hypothesis, that US citizens have on
the average a more practical attitude towards killing humans ("he/she
deserves to die "). This again could manifest both as a popularity of the
death penalty and a high murder rate.
However, an easy access to firearms makes it easier to fullfill one's
intention to kill, and is thus a very important factor in the high murder
rate of USA.. If thoughts could kill, I guess the murder rate would be
enormous everywhere.
John Rennie
"Matti Kaikkonen" <matti.k...@nospam.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:bggsg6$afe$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
firearms, contributing to the high murder rate in the US is number of
murders committed by blacks on blacks. Remove this statistic from the
murder rate and the figure that remains approximates to that of Sweden or
Switzerland; both countries with similar gun laws to the US. There's more
than one reason for black on black murders, the legacy of slavery, the
economic strata that most blacks are condemned to live in and the 'don't
give a damn' attitude of white American society.
Peter Morris
What makes you think I'm a bitter man?
Peter Morris
dirtdog
<no...@m.please> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dirtdogCHOCO...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message
>news:jui7lvgf2auhk3j0r...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 18:54:51 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris"
>> <no...@m.please> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >5) He alwatys meant that, even whenb he said that o9nly
>>
>> Fuck me, Beardy. Have you been on the bitter again?
>
>
>What makes you think I'm a bitter man?
The Beard. Beadies drink bitter.
w00f
dirtdog
Peter Morris
What makes you think I wear beads?
FitzHerbert
> > >5) He alwatys meant that, even whenb he said that o9nly
> >
> > Fuck me, Beardy. Have you been on the bitter again?
>
>
> What makes you think I'm a bitter man?
I'd wager it's the beard, Pete.
You drink 'Ruddles', no?
Hope this helps,
Neville
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:g0ojiv8feptpleidp...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:44:12 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
>> >news:bgbd3q$iem$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
>> >> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
>> >> news:bg9n7u$j7$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>> >> > "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:bg9199$cec$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
>>
>> <clipped>
>>
>> >No, not really. All human life is valuable to me, even murderers lives.
>>
>> A comment from you that requires the use of a response that I have
>> committed myself to hardly ever using any more, now finds its way to
>> being essential in response to your words --- ROTFLMAO.
>
>Ah here we go, Peeves' usual claim that
>
>1) HIS words mean 'murderers deserve to be murdered
>
Of course your words imply exactly that. Why would you keep insisting that
there is some DIFFERENCE between a guard and a prisoner, if there is not
the clear understanding that you find prisoners somehow 'deserve' what they
got, simply because they were in prison? When it comes to being murdered,
there is absolutely no difference to me, and you contending that there is certainly
leaves the impression that they 'deserved' what they got. When I posted the
number of murders committed by murderers in prisons, why would you remark
uncaringly -- "Was even one sigle one of the victims wrongly convicted? Because if
not, it has no relevence whatsoever." ???? If you did not find the murder of those
criminals not innocent of a crime to be irrelevant? Obviously, you feel that
criminals murdered in prison have no relevance to you -- See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a55to2%24eoo%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
>2) He never actually meant them
>
I've never said them... the implication that murderers deserve to be murdered, is
yours... and yours alone. My statements have ALWAYS been -- "NO ONE
DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
>3) But I agree with them
>
You've never agreed with my statement... you've always contended that criminals
murdered in prison are "irrelevant."
>4) He always meant what I said, when I claimed
>that everyone should be protected, not just 'innocents'
>
It seems as if you're always insisting that 'criminals' are somehow different from
guards, in respect to the value of their life... and that they somehow 'deserve' to
be murdered, because they are criminals. You'll never find me having said that.
I have contended over and over, that not even Jeffrey Daumer deserved to be
murdered. Prisoners are no different than guards in respect to NOT deserving
to be murdered. While you have stated that -- ""It has to be said four out of seven
of the victims of these murders were criminals." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
Implying that there is a 'difference' in their 'deserving' to be victims.
>5) He alwatys meant that, even whenb he said that o9nly
>innocents should be protected from murder, and murderers
>aren't innocent.
>
EVERYONE should be protected from being murdered. The fact that murderers
and those criminals who are in prison for having committed a crime are not 'innocent
of committing a crime,' has nothing to do with protecting them from being
murdered. Each of us, every human, deserves protection from being murdered.
This is rather a moral fundamental principle to me. When a murderer murders again
in prison, it demonstrates the failure of every means short of absolute
incapacitation to prevent his murdering again, and thus requires consideration of
such absolute incapacitation, which can ONLY be achieved with the DP. The DP
has then been shown to be the only absolute solution to that not happening again. If
a murderer, already convicted of a murder, murders another human... any human,
while in prison, or after having escaped from prison, I believe that such a murder
should be considered a capital murder, with the DP being placed on the table as a
possible sentence, if convicted of that murder in prison. You would contend that it
doesn't matter if criminals are murdered in prison, if more of their murderers can be
'saved' from execution. Again, your true, and totally accurate words -- "Executing
hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other criminals does not
make sense, to me." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
>Give it up, Peeves, nobody believes you.
>
As long as you lie, and deceive by contending that I have offered comments which
I have never offered, and as long as I quote you EXACTLY, providing the references
to your exact words, in respect to your feelings about 'criminals murdered in
prison,' I have nothing to worry about. You're a bitter, cruel, hysterical
murderer-lover. A proven, bible-thumping murderer-lover, who would rather that those
who are murderers, and murder again in prison, be 'saved,' instead of 'saving' their
possible future victims.
When you address your own exact words... instead of lying by claiming they are
mine, you might regain a shred of believability here... but until then....
Shame...shame...shame... on you, Peter.
PV
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
Allow me. As long as we are discussing 'hypothetical' situations which
involve saving a number of people. Let us examine the possibility of
killing an innocent to save a much larger number.
A terrorist holds in his hand a remote control device that when depressed
will activate a nuclear bomb in central London. He stands 20 meters in
front of you, and you have a laser weapon which will unleash a laser
pulse which will instantly vaporize everything within a 10 meter radius of the
object it strikes. It is aimed at the terrorist, who is raving, and laughing madly
as he intends to activate that remote control. Unfortunately, an innocent
civilian has unknowingly walked toward the terrorist, and is now 5 meters
away from him, unaware of what is going on. You have 1 second to
act, to kill the terrorist, which will also vaporize the remote control and
the innocent civilian. Do you kill the terrorist, along with the innocent
passerby, and save London, or do you save both the terrorist and the
innocent, and allow the nuclear device to explode in central London?
PV
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:hsbjiv44ncibpe12o...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 00:18:10 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
>> >news:bg9199$cec$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
>> >
>> >> What responsibility does the state bear for one of their charges
>killing
>> >> another inmate or a guard? For example, of the 558 death row inmates
>> >> freed
>> >> from death row by Furman, several were responsible for 8 (IIRC)
>in-prison
>> >> murders. Explain why the state doesn't have those new victims' blood
>on
>> >> its hands.
>> >
>> >I believe it was 6 in prison, four prisonners and two guards, and three
>> >outside prison. It also is my understanding that those four prisonners
>> >were themselves former death-row residents.
>>
>> Your 'understanding' has always been flawed. You simply invented that
>> 'understanding.' Those four prisoners murdered by the Furman-commuted
>> murderers, were not among the Furman-commuted group of 558 DR
>> inmates commuted under Furman.
>
>A claim that you have always been anxious to emphasize.
>
Actually, it is YOU who has always been 'anxious to emphasize' the lie,
that the four prisoners murdered by Furman-commuted murderers were
also Furman-commuted murderers. The only time I 'emphasize' that
they were not.. is when you try to lie and contend that they were. Read
your words. It was YOU who contended that "were themselves former
death-row residents." Which is a bold-faced canard. I called you on
it... and your reply now asserts that I am anxious to emphasize the
fact that you lied... quite clearly I agree that I am anxious to emphasize
the fact that you lied. If I don't call you on your lies... who will?
>Why? Because by denying that fact that they were criminals you
>make them more deserving of being saved.
>
Once again, you prove yourself to be arguing that 'criminals' are
not 'deserving of being saved.' I certainly DO contend that criminals
are as much deserving of being saved as any other human. Both
criminals and non-criminals are EQUALLY 'deserving of being saved
from murder,' because they are all human beings. To me, the fact that
they are criminals has no meaning in respect to them being murdered.
While you continue to emphasize that you do find them 'different,' and
thus 'deserving' of their fate.
>All the time this has been the way, your opinion that murderers don't
>'deserve' to be protected from murder.
>
Quite wrong... all humans, including murderers deserve to be protected
from being murdered, since "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
All murderer, however; do not 'deserve' to be protected from being lawfully
executed by the State. They only 'deserve' what mercy the state might be
inclined to give them, considering the circumstances of the murder(s) they
have committed, and the possible future danger they represent to every
human... including the danger they represent to criminals, and even
other murderers in prison.
>The fact that I expose your lies, and show that those four victims ARE
>criminals, while you tried to claim they were not, does not indicate
>agreement with your moral principles. NOBODY deserves to be
>murdered, Peeves.
I have never claimed they had committed no crimes. I have always claimed
that they are 'innocent of deserving to be murdered.' "NO ONE DESERVES
TO BE MURDERED." There is no such thing as a human being 'guilty of
being murdered.'
>
>The fact that you ate still denying that these four were muderers is
>proof that you think they deserved to be murdered. I despise you for
>it.
The fact that you are claiming that those four WERE murderers is proof
that YOU think they deserved to be murdered. I despise you for that.
You are a rather cruel human, who has lied by claiming that those four
victims of murder were murderers, and thus, in your view, deserved
to be murdered. In point of fact, even if they were murderers, I would
NEVER agree that they 'deserved' to be murdered. But that has been
your argument throughout. You contend that they were also murderers,
and thus, somehow in your view, deserved to be murdered. The more
you contend that they were murderers... the deeper hole you dig for
yourself that you are arguing that they 'deserved' to be murdered.
PV
A Planet Visitor
Oh, my... this is so nice. I also kicked the two studies around
just the other day. So let me AGAIN repeat what I posted
the other day, and what I posted to Peter Morris just now --
I provided both the link to the DOJ recidivist report for those
released in 1994, and the DOJ recidivist report for those released in
1983. It would be interesting to see what a new recidivist report
(possibly for those released in 2005), will reveal. But there is
certain evidence of changes having occurred in the period between
1983 and 1994. Thus, I will repeat my comment that I provided --
Refer to --
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
The 1994 DOJ report on recidivism. It showed that recidivism for murderers
was 1.2% (see table 10). Those convicted of assault, and motor vehicle theft had
higher recidivism rates for murder (Although they are not REALLY recidivist
MURDERERS since they never murdered before -- they were recidivist criminals
who committed (or were rearrested for) murder as their follow-on crime). Those
convicted of rape, and robbery and burglary had lower rates of committing (or
being arrested for) murder than did released murderers.
But that was 1994. Now we can turn to
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf
Which is the same data for those released in 1983. And which uses the same criteria
used in 1994, in the determination of what constitutes recidivism. And we find the
recidivism rate for released murderers recommitting (or being arrested for) murder
to be almost three times any other group of released prisoners... a staggering 6.6%.
(see table 9).
What can one surmise from this decline in recidivism for released murderers
in the period 1983 to 1994? Well, one fact in evidence is that in 1983 there
had been only 6 executions in the past 11 years. Hardly a number which
would cause great concern to those released from having committed a murder,
if they decided to commit another new murder, IMHO. But in 1994, The later
recidivism report, showed a recidivism rate for released murderers of 1.2%, a
dramatic drop for released murderers. While that drop was accompanied by
a huge increase in the number of executions which now numbered 226 at the
end of 1993. It would seem that released murderers were 'getting the message'
that if they had previously murdered and murdered again, they would almost
certainly face the needle. While such fear would not have been as prevalent among
those who had never murdered before. Or perhaps we were now executing those
who would be among that 5.4% difference in the recidivism rate. Gee... maybe
the DP DOES deter those who have already murdered???
I make no claim that it operated in such a manner. But clearly there is a FACTUAL
inverse relationship to recidivism/number of executions in the period between
the two reports. One can draw whatever significance they might wish to do
from this inverse relationship. I only report the FACTS. -- 6.6% recidivism
with 6 executions in 11 years... 1.2% recidivism with 226 executions in the next
intervening 11 years. Falling recidivism... rising executions.
Further, in the U.S. there were presently 285 murderers on various death rows...
who had previously been convicted of murder and released, to murder
again, as reported by FBI statistics released for the end of 2000. See -
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cp00.pdf
(see table 9). How many opportunities are you willing to give them?
And even further, during the period 1993-1999, there were a reported
116 murders committed in prison, in those seven years. How many
opportunities would you afford those already supposedly in an environment
that 'protects totally from being murdered,' to murder again? See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=SVcd8.192164%24Gb1.28873014%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
PV
>Earl
>
A Planet Visitor
>
>"danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
>news:bgdpr6$g6r$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
>
>> Do you have a cite? The only study I'm aware of that explicitly tracked
>> murder recidivism is about 20 years old and found that while murder is the
>> least repeated crime, convicted murderers murdered anew about 4 times as
>> frequently as any other group.
>>
>> I found a study published in 2000
>> (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/rpr94.txt) and it does not support
>> your claim that "released car thieves are more likely to commit murder
>than
>> released murderers".
>
>Look at the PDF version of the report,
>http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
>
>look at table 10.
>
>released from homicide conviction, rearrested for homicide - 1.2%
Thus... they are recidivist murderers.
>released from motor vehicle theft conviction, rearrested for homicide - 2.4%
Thus... they are recidivist criminals... having never been previously convicted of
a homicide.
Do you know the difference between someone who murders, and murders
again... and someone who commits a crime and then commits a murder?
The first is a 'multiple murderer.' How many 'opportunities would you provide
them? Who do you consider a greater danger.. one who murders, is
released and murders again, or one who steals a car, is released, and
murders in a subsequent crime? You may reach a different conclusion
than I reach... but I have no doubt what my conclusion is. My point is
that I would not support the DP as much for someone who has a criminal
history of non-violence (steals a car), and then murders in a subsequent
crime, as much as I would support the DP for someone who murders,
is released from prison and murders again. In the first case, society should
well express a greater degree of 'mercy' (whether that would mean NO
execution is not my meaning - much depends on the murder that was
committed) toward someone who commits a first murder, than it should
express any 'mercy' toward someone who commits a murder, after having
already spent time in prison for having committed another murder. In the
second case, it is rather clear that 'rehabilitation' is only empty rhetoric.
<rest clipped>
I would refer you to my recent post... in which I provided both the link you
have given to the DOJ recidivist report for those released in 1994, and the
that 'protects totally from being murdered,' to murder again? Of course,
when I reported those murders, you remarked inhumanly --
"Was even one sigle one of the victims wrongly convicted? Because if not,
it has no relevence whatsoever." Obviously, you feel that criminals murdered
in prison have no relevance to you -- See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a55to2%24eoo%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
I must admit that that is a much better example of a sanctity of life
dilemma than my own. For what it's worth I'd use the vaporiser.
Earl Evleth
Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 17:36:38 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>
> Oh, my... this is so nice. I also kicked the two studies around
> just the other day.
You kick around a lot of stuff PV, most people don`t read it.
Too long and without substance.
> So let me AGAIN repeat what I posted
> the other day, and what I posted to Peter Morris just now --
Let you? Do we have a choice? I read it over and you repeated
what you have said in the past.
First, I am not concerned with old information but new, so the 83-86
study is in the distance past.
> What can one surmise from this decline in recidivism for released murderers
> in the period 1983 to 1994?
This is a repeat what you wrote over a year ago, it is already on Google.
I also repeated and my emphasis is on new murders and that murderers are
not largely responsible. That is a fact, the reason for that can
not be obtained from the study, so it is speculation. You already
speculated.
I have not gone over you repetitions.
If anybody has really read them, they can inform us.
Why to we go over to length of sentencing changes and see what happened.
I have that data in hand, guess what has been happening?
Earl
FitzHerbert
> > Allow me. As long as we are discussing 'hypothetical' situations which
> > involve saving a number of people. Let us examine the possibility of
<snip>
Sorry, FuckWit, but I lost interest when you said it was set in London.
> > PV
> >
> >
>
> I must admit that that is a much better example of a sanctity of life
> dilemma than my own. For what it's worth I'd use the vaporiser.
I too suggest FW uses his vaporiser. It can't hurt, can it?
Hope this helps,
Neville
A Planet Visitor
>On 31/07/03 17:38, in article bgbd3q$iem$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com, "danh"
><da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> This does leave the 2 guards who were killed. Their lives count too.
>
>I sometimes take a statistical view. I once looked into death rates of
>guards and they are not exceptionally high. The most dangerous
>profession in the US is being a taxi driver. If a guard gets killed
>that makes the news. Taxi drivers, that is another thing.
Given that guards are in an environment which is presumably perfectly
able to contain murderers without them murdering again (isn't that what
many abolitionists contend?), it would seem that Taxi drivers, a very
vulnerable class, driving at night, into some very dangerous areas, would
have an astronomically higher rate of being murdered. The last I heard,
in Federal penitentiaries ALONE... there have been 23 correctional
officers murdered by inmates since 1901. See...
http://www.bop.gov/ipapg/ipahero.html
Obviously this number is MUCH higher, when one considers State
correctional facilities, which are mostly more porous in respect to
the protection of prison guards than any Federal institution.
>
>> McDuff is was convicted in numerous murders, he was convicted of a felony
>> while incarcerated (not on death row) and is suspected in up to 18 murders,
>> about half of which he was never even prosecuted for (largely to his already
>> existent death sentence).
>
>His release was accidental,
Rubbish... his release was purposeful... He was not 'confused' with any other
prisoner, in a supposed 'accidental' release.
> not a good example of the "average".
What you mean is 'not a good example if one is defending abolition.' And
I would agree with that entirely. But abolition presumed that NO murderer
need be executed... which if in place, would have permitted McDuff to have
experienced the same release, since Furman would have never been
necessary to obtain his commutation from the DP.
<rest clipped>
PV
>Earl
A Planet Visitor
>"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<g58Xa.72$8N5...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>
>> > Allow me. As long as we are discussing 'hypothetical' situations which
>> > involve saving a number of people. Let us examine the possibility of
>
><snip>
>
>Sorry, FuckWit, but I lost interest when you said it was set in London.
>
Do not flatter yourself, Ol' Racist Nev. You have the attention span of
a dung beetle. If it does not involve nude female mud-wrestling of your
second-cousins, you usually lose interest in the first few moments.
I did not say it was 'set in London.' I said the nuclear device was located
in central London. The 'setting' for the confrontation was remote from London,
insuring the survival of all those in the scenario from the nuclear explosion,
regardless of the decision of whether to shoot the terrorist or not. Your
reading skills are again demonstrated as rather deficient.
But it's rather interesting how little you care about a nuclear device placed
in central London.
Hope this helps.... but I doubt it...
PV
> Ol' Racist Nev
A Planet Visitor
Clearly your last words are true --
The legacy of slavery (which lives with the U.S. today in racism), the
economic strata that most Blacks are condemned to live in, and the
'don't give a damn' attitude of White American society toward racial
unrest, and the ghettoization of the Black in poverty, is a national
disgrace in many respect. It contributes not only to the horrendous
rate of Black on Black murders (having reduced the Black to losing
his own self-esteem as to his worth in life), but to the elevated violence
rate the U.S. experiences.
Earl Evleth
Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 08:53:49 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 31/07/03 17:38, in article bgbd3q$iem$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com, "danh"
>> <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>>
> The last I heard, in Federal penitentiaries ALONE... there have been 23
> correctional officers murdered by inmates since 1901.
Since 1901, wow.
Thanks for making my point!
Might I guess that many more correctional officers have been killed in the
same period out in public life!
>>> McDuff is was convicted in numerous murders, he was convicted of a
felony
>>> while incarcerated (not on death row) and is suspected in up to 18 murders,
>>> about half of which he was never even prosecuted for (largely to his already
>>> existent death sentence).
>>
>> His release was accidental,
>
> Rubbish... his release was purposeful... He was not 'confused' with any other
> prisoner, in a supposed 'accidental' release.
He went right through the "safety" net which had been dismantled to empty
the Texas prisons under Federal government order
Having committed the first set of murders in 1966 got him out of being
executed, but the cruel and multiple murders he committed should have
prevented him from ever being let out again. Prison overcrowding produced
a wrong decision, a wrong turn and that is what I meant by accidental.
I was sufficiently so that the McDuff law was specifically passed to
prevent it from happening again.
Earl
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:7f4pivgrrbu6k2a57...@4ax.com...
Oh god, here we go again.
I've answered that question dozens of times already, you pathetic arsehole.
The answer has always been 'Yes'.
All you do is scream, and scream, then claim that I actually mean 'No'
Then you spew thousands of words of invective.
Then I point out that I said 'Yess' and I meant 'Yes'
Then you scream, and change the wording of the question, trying to
find some formulation where I will answer 'No'
You have been trying for years, and hate me because I won't give
the answer you want me to give.
How deeply pathetic you are.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 18:54:51 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> >news:g0ojiv8feptpleidp...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:44:12 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris"
<no...@m.please>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:bgbd3q$iem$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> >> >> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> >> >> news:bg9n7u$j7$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> >> >> > "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:bg9199$cec$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> >>
> >> <clipped>
> >>
> >> >No, not really. All human life is valuable to me, even murderers
lives.
> >>
> >> A comment from you that requires the use of a response that I have
> >> committed myself to hardly ever using any more, now finds its way to
> >> being essential in response to your words --- ROTFLMAO.
> >
> >Ah here we go, Peeves' usual claim that
> >
> >1) HIS words mean 'murderers deserve to be murdered
> >
> Of course your words imply exactly that.
No, yours did.
You stated that only 'innocents' deserved to be saved.
You identified some murder victims as 'innocents' and said
that they deserved to be saved because of their 'innocence'.
You claimed that their only crime was 'being murdered'. You
concealed the fact that they were murderers, because you
think murderers don't deserve to be saved. You also stated
directly that murderers are NOT innocent, and don't deserve to
be saved
All I did was expose your lies. This does not mean I accept
YOUR statement that only 'innocent' people deserve to be
saved.
I have always said that NOBODY deserves to be murdered.
You always said that murderers dont deserve top be protected.
Those are the facts, chump.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
You are so desperate to deny this. Why?
Because you don't think that murderers are worthy of being saved.
This has been your opinion all along, chump, and it always has
been disgusting.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:51:36 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> >news:bgdpr6$g6r$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> >
> >> Do you have a cite? The only study I'm aware of that explicitly
tracked
> >> murder recidivism is about 20 years old and found that while murder is
the
> >> least repeated crime, convicted murderers murdered anew about 4 times
as
> >> frequently as any other group.
> >>
> >> I found a study published in 2000
> >> (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/rpr94.txt) and it does not
support
> >> your claim that "released car thieves are more likely to commit murder
> >than
> >> released murderers".
> >
> >Look at the PDF version of the report,
> >http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
> >
> >look at table 10.
> >
> >released from homicide conviction, rearrested for homicide - 1.2%
>
> Thus... they are recidivist murderers.
No, they are SUSPECTS.
You have always maintained the bsurd notion that suspicion = guilt.
Try and understand the difference, it's pretty basic.
And you have ignored the basic point of my post. Car thieves are twice as
likely as murderers to be SUSPECTS in a subsequent homicide.
If your justification for execution is that you wish to prevent future
murder,
you should execute car thieves more often than murderers, clearly they
are a dangerous bunch.
But logic never was your strong point.
Peter Morris
no.
danh
> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
[...]
> > > What value do the lives of serial killers have to society?
>
> I gave you the courtesy of a direct reply. Would you do the same?
Just a reminder for you, Peter. Despite vigorous posts on this thread,
subsequent to these posts of mine, you've neglected to answer this question,
now asked 3 times.
Would you try again: what value do the lives of serial killers have to
society?
ikke
If I may jump into a thread I've neither followed particularly closely nor
bothered to catch up on in the meantime, should value to society be an
adequate measure of whether or not to do away with someone? I'm not sure it
should, perhaps Peter and yourself do, I don't know and don't mean to speak
on your behalf.
If that_is_a criterion, what value do the very seriously mentally
handicapped have?
Cheers
John
Earl Evleth
<da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
> Would you try again: what value do the lives of serial killers have to
> society?
Possibly none at all. The problem is not that. What does executing people
do to us? Or even keeping them alive and mistreating them.
Some of the more empathetic who have the responsibility of putting people
to death are very bothered by having to do so. Some can rationalizE
their situation by saying "it is my job".
Earl
danh
news:FUyXa.2708$a02.26...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Of course that's not the criterion and no one has suggested it. The
concepts of eugenics and criminal justice are unrelated.
OTOH, Peter (and others) have suggested that the lives of all, including
murderers, have value. I think it's a reasonable question then to ask what
social value serial killers have.
John Rennie
IMHO they do not have any social value. Just as tramps, the mentally
deficient, Conservatives (please note big C) and old age pensioners like
myself, PV and Earl have no social value. All of us are a drag on the rest
of society. Would you do away with us all?
dirtdog
wrote:
Hardly any value whatsoever, other than, perhaps, keeping homicide
detective in their jobs.
Then again, tramps, crack addicts, rapists and the good folks of the
Leicester City Council are of absolutely no value to society either.
Fortunately, in civilised Europe, one being allowed to live does not
depend upon one being of 'value to society'. One day, America [sic]
will catch up.
w00f
dirtdog
wrote:
He's a Tetley's man.
w00f
danh
news:BB548823.10032%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> On 4/08/03 19:12, in article bgm45h$rb7$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com,
"danh"
> <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>
> > Would you try again: what value do the lives of serial killers have to
> > society?
>
>
> Possibly none at all.
It has been claimed that the lives of all humans are valuable. So when one
asks what the value of a particular group of humans is, those who claim all
human life is valuable should have a ready answer. I don't see any
forthcoming.
[...]
dirtdog
Ah, so in other words, it was a Nonsensical Rhetorical Daniel
Question, and a clumsy one at that.
Of course, the question of what 'social value' the serial killer holds
depends entirely not only on one's perception of what constitutes
'society', but also what constitutes a 'benefit' to 'society'. Since
both concepts are necessarily highly subjective, Beardy could say
whatever he wishes and _cannot_ be wrong - all that Danny-Boy could
possibly muster is a whine of 'I disagree'.
Hardly the work of a 'professional writer' (LOL) deftly manoeuvring
his interlocutor into a logical corner!
w00f
dirtdog
<da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>news:BB548823.10032%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>> On 4/08/03 19:12, in article bgm45h$rb7$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com,
>"danh"
>> <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Would you try again: what value do the lives of serial killers have to
>> > society?
>>
>>
>> Possibly none at all.
>
>It has been claimed that the lives of all humans are valuable.
To one who believes that _all_ human life is valuable, _any_ human
life has value, Daniel.
> So when one
>asks what the value of a particular group of humans is, those who claim all
>human life is valuable should have a ready answer.
By virtue of the fact that it _is_ human life, one who believes that
human life is inherently valuable would see value in any human life.
Christ, it's like pulling teeth. I suggest you drop it now, you're
getting a 'group spanking' and it ain't pretty.
<snip>
w00f
Peter Morris
"dirtdog" <dirtdogCHOCO...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message
news:k5aflvk4vjjjv95bm...@4ax.com...
Nah, PG, or lapsang souchong if I can be bothered to make it.
Peter Morris
> "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> news:bgdrhf$51k$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> > "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> > news:bgc0t4$idh$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > > "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bgbl6o$tvq$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
>
> [...]
>
> > > > What value do the lives of serial killers have to society?
> >
> > I gave you the courtesy of a direct reply. Would you do the same?
>
> Just a reminder for you, Peter. Despite vigorous posts on this thread,
> subsequent to these posts of mine, you've neglected to answer this
question,
> now asked 3 times.
Well, the first time you asked it seemed like a rhetorical question,
not requiring an answer.
So you ask again, and then just over three hours later you ask again, upset
that I didn't respond within those three hours. Do you really think it's
appropriate to flame me for not replying in three hours?
> Would you try again: what value do the lives of serial killers have to
> society?
Well, some people have already given excellent replies to this. I certainly
agree that someone does not need 'value' to justify their continued
existence.
But as for the 'value' of serial killers, virtually every one has a mother,
or a sister, or a daughter who happens to love them very much and
would be very sad to see them killed. Leaving them alive keeps
innocent relatives happy. That's the 'value' they have.
Perhaps you would care to explain what value YOU have to society,
to justify your continued existence on this planet.
Jigsaw1695
Actually, it is the application of justice.
A Planet Visitor
Actually, it is you who is so desperate to lie about it. I simply called you on
your lie. If you read the thread, you will find that YOU were the first who
was so desperate to lie, and claim that the victims were also Furman-commuted
prisoners. I am not desperate to deny it... I am simply calling you a liar.
>Because you don't think that murderers are worthy of being saved.
>
What are you talking about? Even if they WERE Furman-commuted prisoners
it is YOU who is arguing that they are not worthy of being saved, BECAUSE
you claim they were Furman-commuted prisoners. As far as I'm concerned,
I'm simply calling you a liar, and even if they WERE Furman-commuted
prisoners I would STILL contend that they WERE worthy of being saved from
being murdered... since I have ALWAYS contended... and you will find nothing
from me to refute it... that "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
Even Jeffrey Daumer... even every Furman-commuted prisoner... even Kenneth
McDuff. NO ONE deserves to be murdered. How much clearer can that be?
>This has been your opinion all along, chump, and it always has
>been disgusting.
LOL... You are simply providing more of your spittle-laden lies. Since it's
proven that YOU do not care about ANY prisoners murdered in prison if
some murderers can be 'saved' from execution. I just love quoting your
EXACT words -- Your words --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other
criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
"It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were criminals."
See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
When I posted the number of murders committed by murderers in prisons, you remarked
uncaringly -- "Was even one sigle one of the victims wrongly convicted? Because if
not, it has no relevence whatsoever." Obviously, you feel that criminals murdered in
prison have no relevance to you -- See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a55to2%24eoo%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
"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." Rather
showing that you find they 'deserve' to be killed by murderers in prison, but their
murderers do not 'deserve' to be executed by the State . See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=39B0FD46.D8441BD3%40lineone.net
And finally... your bible-thumping argument in opposition to the DP --
"It would be a permanent stain on our immortal souls." "read the Bible and see."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8pajdk%24skd%241%40taliesin2.netcom.net.uk
LOL
PV
Jigsaw1695
"danh"
> <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>
> > Would you try again: what value do the lives of serial killers have to
> > society?
>
>
> Possibly none at all. The problem is not that. What does executing people
> do to us? Or even keeping them alive and mistreating them.
>
>
>
============================================================================
Well, Let us take a look at France. They have abolished the death penalty.
Has it made them more compassionate towards their fellow human beings?
Hardly?
Witness the "compassion" of the French as they stood idely by while Saddam
Hussian imprisoned, tortured and murdered thousands upon thousands of Iraqi
citizens, Kurds and Kuwaitis.
Maybe if the French had the death penalty, they would be able to understant
that tyrants such as Saddam and his two sons should be stopped.
Jigsaw
A Planet Visitor
LOL... So were those 6.6% in 1983... We are speaking of 'changes' between
the two periods, both using the same selection criteria of recidivism. The
selection criteria provided by the DOJ. I did not conjure up that 6.6%
recidivist figure from thin air... it remains the criteria used by the DOJ for
recidivism.
>You have always maintained the bsurd notion that suspicion = guilt.
>Try and understand the difference, it's pretty basic.
>
No, I have not. I have used the criteria that the DOJ used in respect to
recidivism. That's rather obvious, since the percentages I provide are those
FROM the DOJ recidivist reports. If they characterize them as recidivists,
then clearly that is what I am referring to.
>
>And you have ignored the basic point of my post. Car thieves are twice as
>likely as murderers to be SUSPECTS in a subsequent homicide.
I certainly did not ignore that point. I clearly said "Those convicted of assault,
and motor vehicle theft had higher recidivism rates for murder." You
simply clipped it, without remarking that you had done so.
>If your justification for execution is that you wish to prevent future
>murder,
>you should execute car thieves more often than murderers, clearly they
>are a dangerous bunch.
Actually, car thieves who subsequently murder have only murdered once.. if
we presume recidivism in the report refers to the actual commission of murder.
While those who were released from prison for having committed murder,
and are recidivist murderers, have murdered twice. I would be much more
inclined that society express 'mercy' on those who murder once, than on those
who murder and murder again Using your 'logic' we can presume that executing
'everyone' will also provide a perfect solution to preventing any future murders.
I am not interested in criminals who might commit murders being judged as
harshly as murderers who might commit another murder after their release from
having committed that first murder, or who are murderers who murder while
in prison. The thought of 'rehabilitation' is no longer viable in those cases.
>
>But logic never was your strong point.
>
Of course, they could murder a million times... and you would still claim
that they can be 'rehabilitated.' While you would also claim that the murders
they commit on prisoners in prison are actually 'irrelevant,' unless those
prisoners are actually innocent. Your words, when I posted the number
of murders committed by murderers in prisons, you remarked uncaringly --
"Was even one sigle one of the victims wrongly convicted? Because if not,
it has no relevence whatsoever." Obviously, you feel that criminals murdered in
prison have no relevance to you -- See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a55to2%24eoo%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
PV
A Planet Visitor
No, sport... all the denying in the world cannot erase one tiny bit of
your arguments that criminals murdered in prison are irrelevant to
you. And if they happen to be Furman-commuted prisoners, you
need to emphasize that they 'deserve to be murdered.'
>
>You stated that only 'innocents' deserved to be saved.
Everyone is 'innocent' in respect to deserving to be saved from murder.
That's axiomatic. Even Jeffrey Daumer... even Kenneth McDuff...
deserved to be saved from being murdered.
>You identified some murder victims as 'innocents' and said
>that they deserved to be saved because of their 'innocence'.
EVERYONE deserves to be saved from being murdered. That
fact is so morally axiomatic that it simply demonstrates your
immorality. Nothing more clearly showed how you find the
victims of murder in prison to 'deserve' being murdered, then
when I posted the number of murders committed by murderers in
prisons,and you remarked uncaringly --
"Was even one sigle one of the victims wrongly convicted?
Because if not, it has no relevence whatsoever."
Obviously, you feel that criminals murdered in prison have no
relevance to you. With the clear meaning that if they were NOT
'wrongly convicted' then they 'deserved' to be murdered, and
they are irrelevant to any discussion of victims of murder -- See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a55to2%24eoo%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
>You claimed that their only crime was 'being murdered'.
Actually, you have it ass-backwards, again. I claim that 'being
murdered' CANNOT be a crime. No one can be 'guilty' of
'being murdered.' They can ONLY be an 'innocent VICTIM' of
murder. It is the most ignorant belief I can imagine that you
would argue that someone could be 'guilty' of 'being murdered.'
But that is what you have done... over and over.
> You
>concealed the fact that they were murderers, because you
>think murderers don't deserve to be saved. You also stated
>directly that murderers are NOT innocent, and don't deserve to
>be saved
>
Actually, there is nothing to conceal. Even if they are murderers,
they do not deserve to be murdered. They are 'innocent victims'
of murder, when they are murdered. Of course I believe murderers
deserve to be saved from being murdered. And you will not find
one words from me that expresses ANYONE deserves to be
MURDERED. Of course, if society determines that a murderer
should be executed, I find no reason to believe they deserve to
be 'saved' from such execution.
>All I did was expose your lies. This does not mean I accept
>YOUR statement that only 'innocent' people deserve to be
>saved.
>
You never have accepted it... Since you believe that guilty
people 'deserve' to be murdered, since you have stated that they
are irrelevant. Your words when I posted the number of murders\
committed by murderers in prisons, you remarked uncaringly --
"Was even one sigle one of the victims wrongly convicted?
Because if not, it has no relevence whatsoever." Obviously,
you feel that criminals murdered in prison have no relevance
to you -- See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a55to2%24eoo%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
And the further point is, if I were not concerned about murders
of prisoners in prison, why would I have posted the number of
murders committed in prison, to which you provided your
immoral comment? The fact is that murders in prison concern
me greatly... while you find them irrelevant.
>> I have always said that NOBODY deserves to be murdered.
>You always said that murderers dont deserve top be protected.
>
They most certainly DO need to be protected from BEING MURDERED.
EVERYONE deserves to be protected from being murdered. But you
have found that being protected from being murdered in prison is not
that important to you, if a greater number of their murderers can be
'saved' from execution. Your words --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other
criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
>Those are the facts, chump.
>
Yes, they are, sport... And they show that you don't give a damn about
ANY criminal murdered in prison, as long as you can 'save' their murderer
from execution by the state. In point of fact... you SUPPORT murder of
prisoners in prison... while OPPOSING the execution of their murderers.
I do believe you find murder more 'moral' than the execution of murderers.
Don't you? I do think I've struck the mother-lode here, with this question,
in respect to your views on the difference between 'murder' and the DP.
Don't you REALLY believe that the murders Kenneth McDuff committed
were a lesser 'crime' than that committed by the state when the state executed
Kenneth McDuff? Don't you find Kenneth McDuff to be more 'moral' than
the State? Don't you believe he would have the 'right' to murder hundreds,
before the state would have a 'right' to execute him? Not hundreds... but
thousands... hundreds of thousands... our entire species... before you would
EVER claim the state has a 'right' to execute Kenneth McDuff?
You poor, sloppy son-of-a-bitch.
PV
A Planet Visitor
No, you have not... you've NEVER answered it. Provide one post
from you that has answered this particular scenario. Since it was the
first time that scenario has been presented in that form.
>The answer has always been 'Yes'.
>
Yes!!!! Yes... what, you stupid shit. Yes... you would kill the terrorist
and the innocent passerby... or Yes... you would allow the nuclear
device to explode in central London?
>All you do is scream, and scream, then claim that I actually mean 'No'
>Then you spew thousands of words of invective.
>
>Then I point out that I said 'Yess' and I meant 'Yes'
>
>Then you scream, and change the wording of the question, trying to
>find some formulation where I will answer 'No'
>
>You have been trying for years, and hate me because I won't give
>the answer you want me to give.
>
>How deeply pathetic you are.
A simple 'yes,' has still not provided the answer to the question. But
presuming you mean you would murder (you loved to use that
word in the trolley problem) the innocent passerby, that rather
stands as proof that you consider it 'immoral,' yet you would
still commit this 'immoral' act.
I'm just trying to gauge at what point your 'immorality' kicks in,
and common sense takes over, since in the trolley problem you
stated that 'it never becomes moral.' I've never been able to
figure out at exactly what point you would trade one innocent life
to save a greater number, but apparently we have narrowed it
down to one innocent murdered, equaling most of Central London.
So exactly how many would need to be threatened by that terrorist,
before you would kill the terrorist, and murder the passerby in
the killing of that terrorist? Let's now presume it is simply a
bomb that will be remotely detonated on a subway platform that
will murder 50 people. Are you still willing to kill the terrorist,
and murder the innocent passerby to save those 50 people?
PV
>
A Planet Visitor
That has never been the point (although spike did suggest that the
"unemployed or ill" should be strung up). The point is that murderers
provide no social value, or benefit our species. That is not presumed
as the 'reason' they must be punished. They must be punished because
they have murdered. The clear meaning behind the fact that murderers
provide no social value, or benefit our species, is to argue that their
acts cannot be mitigated by any presumed benefit they might provide
our species. There are no benefits derived from murderers, and thus
they should be judged on their acts... the murders they have
committed, and not presume that having committed those murders
has provided any benefit to our species.
Whether other, who have not murdered, provide any benefit for our
species, has no meaning in this sense, since many cannot provide
benefit even if they wish to do so. It is simply the statement that
murderers provide no benefit for our species... and stands alone as
something to examine when we examine the murders they commit.
In a sense, what is being said is that 'murder provides no benefit
for our species.' And only murderers -- murder. Which can hardly
be equated with those who have not committed murder being unable,
or even unwilling to provide any benefit for our species.
PV
Earl Evleth
<da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
> It has been claimed that the lives of all humans are valuable. So when one
> asks what the value of a particular group of humans is, those who claim all
> human life is valuable should have a ready answer. I don't see any
> forthcoming.
Some anti-DP arguments revolve around the
comparative costs of keeping a person in prison for life vs the
total cost, from arrest on to execution of "processing" a murderer.
In this case, a reasonable monetary value of about 1 million dollars
saved in not executing. These calculations are questionable but not
unreasonable.
The estimated value of a human life itself is variable, one takes
into account everything and the kitchen sink and it is easy
to run up an estimate of a million or two. To total
cost of gun violence in the US has been put to around
100 billion dollars a year using the kitchen sink estimates.
The cost of a murder must be in the millions. The best
cost control approach in that case is to prevent murders.
In fact, murder rates did decrease in the 1990s. If
the nation was truly interested in value in a monetary
sense, it would find out why and also study national
cultures which have low homicide rates and find out
how they do it. Concentrating on executions is a bit
late in the procedure of murder prevention.
The value brought up in your above paragraph is more ephemeral.
A moral value. A moralist can argue that the DP does moral
damage to the culture, something an econometric analyst would
have difficulty including in his model. I put the value down
as a negative one, one does more moral damage in executing,
both individually and collectively, than in not executing.
Executions stimulates the idea that problems
can be solved through violent acts. The American myth
of the lone hero, the OK Corral solution, the hang them higher
approach to law and order, does slop over into national policy.
Right now the financial losses incurred using this approach
is about 4 billion dollars a day.
Earl
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
There you go again, using the word 'punished' in a completely
wrong sense. Terminating another's life is not punishing him/her.
Punishment is supposed to redeem the person being punished,
to improve them. Indeed in the sense that the DP is inflicted
punishment ceases when the murderer dies. What element
of punishment there is, is the period between sentence and
death but as it, punishment that is, terminates with death and
no benefits accrue to either society or individual.
Jigsaw1695
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
=====
Ok.... Here is another one. You are a passanger on an airplane flying from
Chicago to New York. The plane is hijacked by Arab terrorists. They tell you
that they have taken the plane and intend to crash it into the Empire State
Building in New York City. You know you are going to die one way or the
other. So do your fellow passangers. What actions do you take:
A) Pray to your diety of choice and prepare yourself for eternity?
B) Sit quietly in your seat and hope that the terrorists will leave you
alone if you dont bother them?
C) Try to reason with them and explain the need for human compassion and
love of your fellow man?
D) Try to regain control of the airplane even if it means your own life?
Jigsaw
Jigsaw1695
Good job Earl. Now calculate the cost of illegal drug sales in the US.
>
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> >Oh god, here we go again.
> >
> >I've answered that question dozens of times already, you pathetic
arsehole.
> >
> No, you have not... you've NEVER answered it.
Dozens of times.
> Provide one post
> from you that has answered this particular scenario.
See my previous post, where I answer it AGAIN.
> Since it was the
> first time that scenario has been presented in that form.
You keep altering the words slightly, hoping that you will find
some wording whereb I will give a different answer, but it's the
same question I have answered dozens of times before.
You are so deeply pathetic.
> >The answer has always been 'Yes'.
> >
> Yes!!!! Yes... what, you stupid shit.
Oh, I forgot your poor reading comprehension skills.
> Yes... you would kill the terrorist
> and the innocent passerby... or Yes... you would allow the nuclear
> device to explode in central London?
>
> >All you do is scream, and scream, then claim that I actually mean 'No'
> >Then you spew thousands of words of invective.
> >
> >Then I point out that I said 'Yess' and I meant 'Yes'
> >
> >Then you scream, and change the wording of the question, trying to
> >find some formulation where I will answer 'No'
> >
> >You have been trying for years, and hate me because I won't give
> >the answer you want me to give.
> >
> >How deeply pathetic you are.
>
> A simple 'yes,' has still not provided the answer to the question.
The question has been asked and answered dozens of times
> But
> presuming you mean you would murder (you loved to use that
> word in the trolley problem) the innocent passerby, that rather
> stands as proof that you consider it 'immoral,' yet you would
> still commit this 'immoral' act.
No, this hasnothing to do with the trolley problem, peeves.
You know that.
How many years is it since I told you about that?
And you are still obsessed with trying to prove that YOU are right
and the law is wrong? You still want to claim that in the trolley
problem the innocent person DESERVES TO BE MURDERED?
As you have from the start
> I'm just trying to gauge at what point your 'immorality' kicks in,
That's the trouble, you have always thought that murder "becomes
moral at some point"
Murder is NEVER moral, Peeves. NOBODY DESERVES TO BE
MURDERED.
I have said that from the beginning, and you have never understood it.
> and common sense takes over,
I have always used comm,on sense, which is why I oppose
murder. NOBODY DESERVES TO BE MURDERED, Peeves.
> since in the trolley problem you
> stated that 'it never becomes moral.' I've never been able to
> figure out at exactly what point you would trade one innocent life
> to save a greater number,
There is no 'point' at which I would commit wilful murder. You
think people DESERVE TO BE MURDERED, I don't.
> but apparently we have narrowed it
> down to one innocent murdered, equaling most of Central London.
> So exactly how many would need to be threatened by that terrorist,
> before you would kill the terrorist, and murder the passerby in
> the killing of that terrorist?
I hasve explaineed at length the basic differences between this
example and the trolley problem.
In your example, no matter how yoyu twist things, it is the terrorist that
puts the innocent passerby in danger. Anything that happens to the
passerby is the direct fault of the terrorist. You keep twisting the
scennario
trying to get the opposite answer, but whatever you do, the answer is the
same.
That is not the case in the trolley problem, where deliberately killing the
innocent person is MURDER.
You can scream all you want, but you can't make it so.
> Let's now presume it is simply a
> bomb that will be remotely detonated on a subway platform that
> will murder 50 people. Are you still willing to kill the terrorist,
> and murder the innocent passerby to save those 50 people?
And here we go again. You don't get the answer you want,
you ask the question again. You are so desperate and pathetic.
No matter how you twist the question, it is NEVER going to
be the same as the trolley problem, and the answer will ALWAYS
be, yes I will kill the terrorist.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> EVERYONE deserves to be saved from being murdered.
You pretend to think that NOW. Back then you had a rather
different opinion.
PV says : in message http://tinyurl.com/7286
<< Let's put this in the correct context. Would you accept the
execution of 315 proven murderers (as we have discussed),
to save 6 innocent victims from being murdered by those 315?...
Murderers are NOT innocents. When you get THAT in your thick skull,
maybe you will understand. I accept my society EXECUTING murderers to
SAVE innocents. >>
So according to your spew, innocents should be saved, but
murderers are not innocents, and shouldn't be saved.
Yoyu tolod a pack of lies, Peeves. You identified murderers
as 'innocent' and claimed that they are worthy of saving because
they are innocent.
I pointed out the fact that you were lying. That's all I did.
This does not mean I agree with your statement that murderers
aren't worth saving. You can scream forever about how evil
your statement is, and I'll agree that it's evil. But it will remain
yours and not mine forever.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
oh, so you are willing to release murderers who only murder once,
and give them a chance to do it again, huh?
> than on those
> who murder and murder again Using your 'logic' we can presume that
executing
> 'everyone' will also provide a perfect solution to preventing any future
murders.
No, that's your logic. I just point out the flaw in it.
> I am not interested in criminals who might commit murders being judged as
> harshly as murderers who might commit another murder after their release
from
> having committed that first murder, or who are murderers who murder while
> in prison. The thought of 'rehabilitation' is no longer viable in those
cases.
> >
> >But logic never was your strong point.
> >
> Of course, they could murder a million times... and you would still claim
> that they can be 'rehabilitated.'
Would you provide an example of me saying that.
> While you would also claim that the murders
> they commit on prisoners in prison are actually 'irrelevant,' unless those
> prisoners are actually innocent. Your words, when I posted the number
> of murders committed by murderers in prisons, you remarked uncaringly --
>
> "Was even one sigle one of the victims wrongly convicted? Because if not,
> it has no relevence whatsoever." Obviously, you feel that criminals
murdered in
> prison have no relevance to you -- See --
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a55to2%24eoo%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.
uk
PV's usual out of context quotes.
PV claimed that some people murdered in prison were wrongly accused,
and thus more deserving of being saved that real criminals. I asked him to
back up his claim that they were wrongly accused.
This does not mean I accept his claim that 'wrongly accused' people matter
and 'criminals' don't matter. His theory has always been disgusting to me,
since
NOBODY DESERVES TO BE MURDERED, as I have always told the
disgusting piece of filth. He has trouble understanding the concept,
although
he now pretends to think the same.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> >Because you don't think that murderers are worthy of being saved.
> >
> What are you talking about? Even if they WERE Furman-commuted prisoners
> it is YOU who is arguing that they are not worthy of being saved, BECAUSE
> you claim they were Furman-commuted prisoners.
From the very beginning, you claimed they were not criminals AT ALL.
You claimed that because they are INNOCENT their lives are more
valuable than the lives of murderers.
All I did was point out the fact that they aren't the 'innocents' you
claimed them to be. This does NOT mean that I agree with your
claim that murderers aren't worth saving.
Earl Evleth
96KXa.34094$Mc.27...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net, "Jigsaw1695"
<jigsa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Good job Earl. Now calculate the cost of illegal drug sales in the US.
>>
Here are starters. Make it legal and tax it and we can have some
revenues from it.
It is a British paper badmouthing American excesses however.
Earl
****
With pot and porn outstripping corn, America's black economy is flying high
Illegal migrants provide the muscle for US black market
Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Friday May 2, 2003
The Guardian
Marijuana, pornography and illegal labour have created a hidden market in
the United States which now accounts for as much as 10% of the American
economy, according to a study. As a cash crop, marijuana is believed to have
outstripped maize, and hardcore porn revenue is equal to Hollywood's
domestic box office takings.
Despite laws that punish marijuana cultivation more strictly than murder in
some states, Americans spend more on illegal drugs than on cigarettes. And
despite official disapproval of pornography, the US leads the world in
export of explicit sex videos, according to Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs and
Cheap Labour in the American Black Market, by Eric Schlosser.
Although the official American economy has been suffering a downturn, the
shadow economy is enjoying unprecedented levels of success, much in the way
that the prohibition period fuelled the illegal markets in the 30s.
Schlosser found that three specific industries accounted for a major portion
of this boom.
No aspect of farming has grown faster in the US over the past three decades
than marijuana, with one-third of the public over the age of 12 having
smoked the drug.
While the nation's largest legal cash crop, maize, produces about $19bn
(£11.9bn) in revenue, "plausible" estimates for the value of marijuana crops
reach $25bn. Steve White, a former coordinator for the US drug enforcement
administration's cannabis eradication programme, estimates that the drug is
now the country's largest cash crop.
Marijuana Belt
Schlosser writes: "Although popular stereotypes depict marijuana growers as
ageing hippies in northern California or Hawaii, the majority of the
marijuana now cultivated domestically is being grown in the nation's
mid-section - a swath running from the Appalachians west to the Great
Plains. Throughout this Marijuana Belt drug fortunes are being made by
farmers who often seem to have stepped from a page of the old Saturday
Evening Post."
Some of the most expensive crops are grown indoors on the west coast using
advanced scientific techniques but the American heartlands account for the
largest volume. Some estimates suggest 3 million Americans grow marijuana,
although mostly for their own or their friends' use, but between 100,000 and
200,000 are believed to do so for a living.
The laws against the drug are strict. There were 724,000 people arrested for
marijuana offences in 2001 and about 50,000 are in prison. Commercial
growers can serve sentences far longer than those for murder, but the high
risks appear to have had little effect on production or availability: 89% of
secondary school students surveyed indicated that they could easily obtain
the drug.
The annual number of hardcore video rentals in the US has risen from 79m in
1985 to 759m in 2001. Hardcore pornography in the shape of videos, the
internet, live sex acts and cable television is now estimated to generate
around $10bn, roughly the same amount as Hollywood's US box office receipts.
Americans spend more money at strip clubs than at Broadway, regional
theatres and orchestra performances combined. The industry has mushroomed
since the 70s, when a federal study found that it was worth little more than
$10m.
Now the US leads the world in pornography; about 211 new films are produced
every week. Los Angeles area is the centre of the film boom and many of
those in the trade are otherwise respectable citizens.
Nina Hartley, a porn star, told Schlosser: "You'd be surprised how many
producers and manufacturers are Republicans."
The majority of women in the films earn about $400 a scene. At the moment,
there is a surplus of women in California hoping to enter the industry.
The internet has provided a fresh and profitable outlet. In 1997 about
22,000 porn websites existed; the number is now closer to 300,000 and
growing.
More than a million illegal farmworkers are estimated to be employed in the
US, with the average worker being a 29-year-old from Mexico.
Surplus labour
The total number of illegal immigrants is estimated at about 8 million and
many are being paid cash in a shadow economy.
Many live in primitive conditions: a survey in Soledad, in the heart of
California's agricultural territory, found that 1,500 of them, one-eighth of
the town's official population, were living in garages. There are mutual
economic benefits.
"Migrant work in California has long absorbed Mexican surplus labour, while
Mexico has in effect paid for the education, health care and retirement of
California's farmworkers," writes Schlosser. "Maintaining the current level
of poverty among migrant farmworkers saves the average American household
around $50 a year."
The advantages to the employer are clear, most notably in LA county, where
an estimated 28% of workers are paid in cash.
Schlosser believes that the shadow economy will continue to thrive as long
as marijuana and pornography remain illicit.
"A society that can punish a marijuana offender more severely than a
murderer is caught in the grip of a deep psychosis," he concludes. "Black
markets will always be with us. But they will recede in importance when the
public morality is consistent with our private one. The underground is a
good measure of the progress and the health of nations. When much is wrong,
much needs to be hidden."
Earl Evleth
Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote:
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:4lduiv0qg7p6l27us...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> EVERYONE deserves to be saved from being murdered.
Does that include Saddam and his sons????
> You pretend to think that NOW. Back then you had a rather
> different opinion.
No problem, PV is a shifty eyed person who shifts
constantly yet is shiftless.
And he sometimes forgets what he said.
And, in any case, it is his opinion NOW which counts.
As far as he is concerned.
Earl
>
danh
[...]
> > OTOH, Peter (and others) have suggested that the lives of all, including
> > murderers, have value. I think it's a reasonable question then to ask
> what
> > social value serial killers have.
> >
> IMHO they do not have any social value. Just as tramps, the mentally
> deficient, Conservatives (please note big C) and old age pensioners like
> myself, PV and Earl have no social value. All of us are a drag on the
rest
> of society. Would you do away with us all?
When you fish, do you always prefer the red herrings? It's not that having
no social value is reason to "do away" with anyone, but rather, that there
is no mitigation of the question of death for serial killers. This is not a
slippery slope since few tramps, mental deficients, Conservatives and old
age pensioners are serial killers.
danh
> "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> news:bgm45h$rb7$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> > "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> > news:bgdrhf$51k$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> > > "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> > > news:bgc0t4$idh$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > > > "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:bgbl6o$tvq$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
[...]
> So you ask again, and then just over three hours later you ask again,
upset
> that I didn't respond within those three hours. Do you really think it's
> appropriate to flame me for not replying in three hours?
The sequence and timing of my posts wrt this question was:
7/31 1:56 PM
8/1 9:58 AM
8/4 1:12 PM
It took 4 days to obtain an answer, not 3 hours.
> > Would you try again: what value do the lives of serial killers have to
> > society?
>
> Well, some people have already given excellent replies to this. I
certainly
> agree that someone does not need 'value' to justify their continued
> existence.
>
> But as for the 'value' of serial killers, virtually every one has a
mother,
> or a sister, or a daughter who happens to love them very much and
> would be very sad to see them killed. Leaving them alive keeps
> innocent relatives happy. That's the 'value' they have.
That _is_ a novel response - I'll grant you that. I hope you understand how
much most thinking beings reject that POV.
> Perhaps you would care to explain what value YOU have to society,
> to justify your continued existence on this planet.
I don't have to and neither does anyone else. The point you and some others
have made is that _all_ humans have value and are worth keeping alive. For
serial killers, I reject that in some few instances and so do most others
whose brain activity registers on an EEG.
Peter Morris
> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> news:bgmlp2$nck$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> > "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> > news:bgm45h$rb7$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> > > "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bgdrhf$51k$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> > > > "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> > > > news:bgc0t4$idh$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > > > > "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:bgbl6o$tvq$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
>
> [...]
>
> > So you ask again, and then just over three hours later you ask again,
> upset
> > that I didn't respond within those three hours. Do you really think it's
> > appropriate to flame me for not replying in three hours?
>
> The sequence and timing of my posts wrt this question was:
> 7/31 1:56 PM
> 8/1 9:58 AM
> 8/4 1:12 PM
>
> It took 4 days to obtain an answer, not 3 hours.
You posted the question for a second time then waited just four hours
before you posted it again. I didn't happemn to go on the internet
during those four hours, but you felt it neccessary to scream because
I failed to answer your question within those four hours. That is
pathetic, however you look at it.
And frankly, the question was pretty meaningless to begin with. I
honestly didn't consider it worth my time answering.
> > > Would you try again: what value do the lives of serial killers have
to
> > > society?
> >
> > Well, some people have already given excellent replies to this. I
> certainly
> > agree that someone does not need 'value' to justify their continued
> > existence.
> >
> > But as for the 'value' of serial killers, virtually every one has a
> mother,
> > or a sister, or a daughter who happens to love them very much and
> > would be very sad to see them killed. Leaving them alive keeps
> > innocent relatives happy. That's the 'value' they have.
>
> That _is_ a novel response - I'll grant you that. I hope you understand
how
> much most thinking beings reject that POV.
So, you see relatives of executed murderers crying, aqnd you don't care.
Just because YOU don't give a fuck doesn't make it normal.
> > Perhaps you would care to explain what value YOU have to society,
> > to justify your continued existence on this planet.
>
> I don't have to and neither does anyone else. The point you and some
others
> have made is that _all_ humans have value and are worth keeping alive.
For
> serial killers, I reject that in some few instances and so do most others
> whose brain activity registers on an EEG.
Oh yes, the usual response of the desperate. "if you disagree with me
you must be stupid"
Peter Morris
Yes, indeed, and he is still obsessed with trying to claim that
those four victims were not murderers, which shows that he still
holds the opinion that murderers are not worth saving.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
John Rennie wrote:
> There you go again, using the word 'punished' in a completely
> wrong sense. Terminating another's life is not punishing him/her.
> Punishment is supposed to redeem the person being punished,
> to improve them. Indeed in the sense that the DP is inflicted
> punishment ceases when the murderer dies. What element
> of punishment there is, is the period between sentence and
> death but as it, punishment that is, terminates with death and
> no benefits accrue to either society or individual.
I refer you to Clive Staples Lewis' "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment" - a
document that PV may well broadly disagree with but one that argues fairly
convincingly against your assertions (above). Punishment != a cure for the
offender.
I'm sure we've seen absolutely all of this before.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"They've got to be protected/All their rights respected ((o))
Until someone we like can be elected." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Jigsaw1695 wrote:
> Well, Let us take a look at France. They have abolished the death penalty.
> Has it made them more compassionate towards their fellow human beings?
That's as may be but their murder rate is a tiny fraction of that seen in
the USA.
> Hardly?
>
> Witness the "compassion" of the French as they stood idely by while Saddam
> Hussian imprisoned, tortured and murdered thousands upon thousands of Iraqi
> citizens, Kurds and Kuwaitis.
Would that be the same Saddam Hussein who was given millions upon millions
of dollars by the USA in the '80s and even up to 1991, after the first gulf
war? Surely not!
> Maybe if the French had the death penalty, they would be able to understant
> that tyrants such as Saddam and his two sons should be stopped.
Like all the tyrants in South America who were "stopped" by being provided
with overt and covert backing by the USA?
You really must do better than this pathetic trolling attempt, Jiggy. A
better class of troll would have had something approaching a leg to stand on!
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
>> So you ask again, and then just over three hours later you ask again,
> upset
>> that I didn't respond within those three hours. Do you really think it's
>> appropriate to flame me for not replying in three hours?
>
> The sequence and timing of my posts wrt this question was:
> 7/31 1:56 PM
> 8/1 9:58 AM
> 8/4 1:12 PM
>
> It took 4 days to obtain an answer, not 3 hours.
How unforgivable, Dan! it is terrible to discover that some of us have
existences away from a.a.d-p. I really must stop going to the pub, reading
books and attending my place of employment simply in order to keep up with
every a.a.d-p. post the moment it hits Usenet!
Jigsaw1695
> On 5/08/03 10:42, in article
> 96KXa.34094$Mc.27...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net, "Jigsaw1695"
> <jigsa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Good job Earl. Now calculate the cost of illegal drug sales in the US.
> >>
>
>
> Here are starters. Make it legal and tax it and we can have some
> revenues from it.
>
> Earl
=======================================
At what cost to the individual? Are you supporting allowing teenagers and
adults in putting toxic and sometimes deadly substances in their body for
profit?
Apparently you are.
Jigsaw1695
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <sa...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:VwOXa.14723$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
OK...fine... I agree with you that there are some despots that we should
never have supported.
Now...how about the French and their blindness towards the excesses of
Saddam Hussian?
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Who cares, Jiggy? The French never _supported_ Hussein, whereas the USA
_supported_ Pinochet. And that's just for starters.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--