executed criminals commit no crimes
intp...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
In all of history not one repeat offender. Not one. Ever. Never.
So what silly liberal yappee yuppies can say the DP is not a deterrent?
There is no recidivism. Not one etc.
So stop saying stupid things like it is not a deterrent. It is!
If you don't believe this truth, climb the nearest building and jump off.
Practice what you preach. Prove it. Why not visit the truth at:
http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~intphase
acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Right one. The only good criminal is a dead one!!!This is to include dead
crooked judges,politicians, and liars/lawyers as well.
If you find that the Website at intphase is somewhat to your thinking,
then feel free to visit our Website at:
http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/acumen/acumen1/html
It seems that people in Canada are finally fed up with all the
socialist/communist garbage of the past 30 years. They realise that to
reduce and hopefully eliminate CRIME, one must exterminate the criminals,
and the parasites living with the criminals.
Christian Mayne
Oh, here we go. He's started talking to himself. Can someone call the
nurse?
Christian
acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Since when am I talking to myself as you allege?
If you think that I am intphase, you are completely wrong, as anyone
involved can tell you!!!
Intphase has a completely different perspective on faggots, for
example.Also, his view on labour is drastically different from what I
propose, ditto for employment problems.
If you don't like what intphase proposes, tell him, but he is definitely
not me, dummy!!!!
On 28 Oct 1996, Christian Mayne wrote:
> <acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
Right on. The only good criminal is a dead one!!!This is to include dead
acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
The retarded cretin using the alias Christian, which it obviously is not,
just can not seem to read English.
It thinks that intphase and I are the same, when if he would contact
intphase, he would find out the truth - namely that on some points we
agree, while on others, intphase and I are diametrically opposed.
Mind you, what can one expect from a piece of feces, functionally
illiterate, and a liar as well.
One must wonder how it ecer arrived in the UK, from where I left, in
disgust years ago.
On 29 Oct 1996, Christian Mayne wrote:
> <acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
Since when am I talking to myself as you allege?
If you think that I am intphase, you are completely wrong, as anyone
involved can tell you!!!
Intphase has a completely different perspective on faggots, for
example.Also, his view on labour is drastically different from what I
propose, ditto for employment problems.
If you don't like what intphase proposes, tell him, but he is definitely
not me, dummy!!!!
>
> And such misunderstandings would be avoided if you didn't hide behind an
> alias.
Christian Mayne
<acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>Since when am I talking to myself as you allege?
>
>If you think that I am intphase, you are completely wrong, as anyone
>involved can tell you!!!
>
>Intphase has a completely different perspective on faggots, for
>example.Also, his view on labour is drastically different from what I
>propose, ditto for employment problems.
>
>If you don't like what intphase proposes, tell him, but he is definitely
>not me, dummy!!!!
>
>
>
And such misunderstandings would be avoided if you didn't hide behind an
alias.
Christian
Tim Nye
In article <554i73$3...@romeo.logica.co.uk> Christian Mayne <cma...@bcs.org.
uk> writes:
><acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>>Since when am I talking to myself as you allege?
>>
>>If you think that I am intphase, you are completely wrong, as anyone
>>involved can tell you!!!
>And such misunderstandings would be avoided if you didn't hide behind an
>alias.
Actually, you're not far off Christian. Grosvenor posts under the psuedonym
'acumen' but he has another account where he posts under the psuedonym
'Wahrheit' (German for 'truth', of all things).
It sometimes gets quite amusing when Grosvenor posts articles under one
name, then follows them up with articles of support under the other name.
(You might suspect there'd be some kind of multiple personality
schizophrenia going on, but both 'identities' have the same truly warped
perspective.)
Tim
S J Hodgson
intp...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca has a vision:
> In all of history not one repeat offender. Not one. Ever. Never.
>
> So what silly liberal yappee yuppies can say the DP is not a deterrent?
Those who see countries with the DP (such as the US) who also have a very high
murder rate. And those who see other countries without the DP, and a lower
murder rate. What deters people is the fear of being caught, not the sentence.
No-one believes they will be caught, and unfortunately, chances are that they
won't. So they commit the crime, whether it be speeding in a car or murder.
> If you don't believe this truth, climb the nearest building and jump off.
What on earth is the logic behind this?
Steve
"Tequila!"
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <551kdt$o...@news.sas.ab.ca>, intp...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
writes
>In all of history not one repeat offender. Not one. Ever. Never.
>
>So what silly liberal yappee yuppies can say the DP is not a deterrent?
>
Ho hum!! I suppose that when one is dealing with someone of supremely
limited intelligence, then one is obliged to make things simple . . .
>So stop saying stupid things like it is not a deterrent. It is!
No, child: it is NOT.
To deter someone would mean killing a criminal to prevent others
committing the same crime (and since released murderers have just about
the lowest rate of recidivism of any criminal group, it is fatuous in
the extreme to retort with 'But it stops the murderer doing it again!!)
The fact is that inflicting the death penalty on a criminal only serves
to make other potential murderers identify with the state as an agent of
death. Thus, it is a scientific fact that states which execute
criminals show an increase in the murder rate immediately after the
execution.
Don't believe me: just keep on killing criminals, and keep having sky
high murder rates, and keep killing more criminals, and have even higher
murder rates, and keep killing more criminals, and have yet higher
murder rates, and keep killing criminals, and . . . .
Or say to yourselves, "This has to stop. Let's break the cycle of
violence."
Unfortunately, this sort of thinking is at present way beyond the
reasoning power of 99 % of Americans. One day, perhaps. . .
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
http://www.maudit.co.uk
'C'etait pour m'excuser. On ne tombe pas folle amoureuse d'un
autre, en plein cours d'une liaison charmante, sans presenter
des explications.'
'Les Stances a Sophie'
Christiane Rochefort
Don Kool
S J Hodgson wrote:
> intp...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca has a vision:
> > In all of history not one repeat offender. Not one. Ever. Never.
> >
> > So what silly liberal yappee yuppies can say the DP is not a deterrent?
> Those who see countries with the DP (such as the US) who also have a very high
> murder rate. And those who see other countries without the DP, and a lower
> murder rate.
And those countries such as Saudi Arabia with a just Death Penalty
and a lower murder rate then any country without the just Death Penalty.
> What deters people is the fear of being caught, not the sentence.
What deters people is a combination of the two.
> No-one believes they will be caught, and unfortunately, chances are that they
> won't. So they commit the crime, whether it be speeding in a car or murder.
A true statement. Didn't think you had it in you.
Hope this helps,
Don
--
****************** Get your stinking paws off me,
* Don McDonald * You damned, dirty ape !
* Baltimore, MD * ---- Charleton Heston
****************** "Planet of the Apes"
http://www.clark.net/pub/oldno7
acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Don Kool, and intphase are both completely correct.
When a criminal is executed, he will NEVER RE-OFFEND, not even while on
parole.
The costs to the taxpayers cease on his extermination.
Sometime, the execution scares straight some other criminal.
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <Pine.A41.3.95.961105...@freenet.edmonton.ab
.ca>, acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes
>Don Kool, and intphase are both completely correct.
>
That would be a first . . .
>When a criminal is executed, he will NEVER RE-OFFEND, not even while on
>parole.
>
If he's kept in properly supervised custody, the same can be achieved.,
without loss of life, and a lot more cheaply. Which brings us to . . .
>The costs to the taxpayers cease on his extermination.
>
In the meantime, getting him to the death chamber has cost millions of
dollars more than it would have cost the state to put him in a cell.
Of course, we could always cut the time that he's allowed to appeal, but
that would result in even more innocent people being executed. It has
already happened, but it would happen even more.
>Sometime, the execution scares straight some other criminal.
>
>
Perhaps, but more often than not, it encourages murder by the direct
brutalisation of society.
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
'Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to
which no criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For
there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a
criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a
horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined
him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in
private life.'
Albert Camus.
twi...@aol.com
poor desmond
if you accept the bruralization theory, that is, that executions produce
an atmosphere where life is not respected, therefore the murder rate goes
up, then you must also accept the deterrence effect. Why? Well, the
studies which show a deterrent effect far outnumber the brutalization
effect studies and the only country which executes enough criminal per
capita to give us a largwe enough data base is Saudi Arabia and they show
overwhelming detterrent effect.
Also, the county which executes more murderers than any other county in
the USA is Harris County(Houston) Texas, which has seen a 48% reduction in
their murder rate from 1990-1994. The highest murder rate in Texas was in
1981. They reinstated the death penalty in 1982.
During the USA's moratorium against executions from 1966-1977, the USA's
murder rate rose 100%. The murder rate rose 300% during that time in NYC.
see JUSTICE FOR ALL's website for sources. www.fightback.com/jfa
TWIFTS
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <19961115101...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
twi...@aol.com writes
>Well, the
>studies which show a deterrent effect far outnumber the brutalization
>effect studies
Could you quote some of these, please? Or at least tell us their names?
>and the only country which executes enough criminal per
>capita to give us a largwe enough data base is Saudi Arabia and they show
>overwhelming detterrent effect.
So you're proud to compare the criminal justice system in the United
States, with that in Saudi Arabia?
Excellent.
This was covered elsewhere in one of my postings: Saudi Arabia has no
elections (or at least none with more than one candidate), and women
aren't allowed to drive. You can get your hand chopped off for
stealing, and if you dare to insult the King, you might even be lucky
enough to be publicly beheaded.
Now, would you care to (as you say stateside) run that study by us
again?
Mitchell Holman
}
}Also, the county which executes more murderers than any other county in
}the USA is Harris County(Houston) Texas, which has seen a 48% reduction in
}their murder rate from 1990-1994.
Wrong on several counts.
For starters, Harris County executes no one. That is up to the
state of Texas. Secondly, if the death penalty deterred murder in
Houston, why didn't deter murder in the Harris County industrial
city of Pasadena, whose murder rate went *up* during the same
time period? Same county, same prosecutor, same jury pool, same
judges, different results.
The highest murder rate in Texas was in
}1981. They reinstated the death penalty in 1982.
So what? If the DP deterred, then the leading executioner in the
country (Texas) ought to have the lowest murder rate, instead of
one of the highest.
}
}During the USA's moratorium against executions from 1966-1977, the USA's
}murder rate rose 100%.
Another misuse of statistics. The murder rate rose before the
moratorium, during the moratorium, and after the moratorium. The
DP did not affect crime, much less violent crime.
Really, you ought to leave the professional analysis of deterrence
to the professionals. You *do* have some professional studies to
back up your theories, don't you?
Mitchell Holman
"Capital punishment is our way of demonstrating the
sanctity of life"
Republican Senator Orrin Hatch
twi...@aol.com
Mitchell,
I am sorry you failed to read my post before responding. I never claimed a
deterrent effect, did I?
Harris County is responsible for sending more murderers to death than any
other county in the country. True. Harris County has sent more murderers
to their execution than any other county or state in the nation from
1990-1994. True. Harris County's murder rate has dropped by 48% during
that time - the greatest decrease for any county in the nation. True.
Texas' and Harris County's highest murder rates occurred in 1981. True.
Texas reinstituted the death penalty in 1982. True.
New York City's murder rate increased 300% during the country's moratorium
against executions from 1966-1977. True.
This post was made to counter the "brutalization" garbage that is often
put on this newsgroup. True.
Mitchell Holman could not resist jumping to conclusions and making false
assumptions regarding the posts of others. True.
TWIFTS
Mitchell Holman
In article <19961120064...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, twi...@aol.com wrote:
}Mitchell,
}
}I am sorry you failed to read my post before responding. I never claimed a
}deterrent effect, did I?
}
}Harris County is responsible for sending more murderers to death than any
}other county in the country. True. Harris County has sent more murderers
}to their execution than any other county or state in the nation from
}1990-1994. True. Harris County's murder rate has dropped by 48% during
}that time - the greatest decrease for any county in the nation. True.
}Texas' and Harris County's highest murder rates occurred in 1981. True.
}Texas reinstituted the death penalty in 1982. True.
If you are not trying to imply a deterrent effect, then what is the
point of posting your "true" statements?
If you are going create the illusion of a causal connection, then
try these "true" facts: When the DP was reintroduced in 1977, the
national murder rate went *up*. When Texas resumed executions
in 1982, the murder rate went *up*. On average states that execute
remain more violent and have more murders than those that do not.
The most violent city in the county is Miami, which has enjoys the
"protection" of an active death penalty. The murder capital of the
country is New Orleans, which enjoys the "benefit" of an active
death penalty. When Canada abolished the death penalty their
murder rate went *down*. For every isolated factoid you post to
prove deterrence, there are plenty showing just the opposite.
You have yet to post any reputable professional proof of deterrence,
and your isolated "true" figures only embarass the postition you say
you are not making. You would do best to leave the detailed analysis
of deterrence to reports prepared by experts. Got any that you wish to
share with us?
Mitchell Holman
"The truth is that unarmed people die everyday as the victims of unrepentent serial killers."
Another unproven factoid from Don "Kool", Nov 19, 1996
lord...@aol.com
In article <8kpsFGAy...@maudit.demon.co.uk>, "Mr Desmond E. Coughlan"
<D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> writes:
acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes
>>The costs to the taxpayers cease on his extermination.
Coughlin
>In the meantime, getting him to the death chamber has cost millions of
>dollars more than it would have cost the state to put him in a cell.
>
>Of course, we could always cut the time that he's allowed to appeal, but
>that would result in even more innocent people being executed. It has
>already happened, but it would happen even more.
Acumen
>>Sometime, the execution scares straight some other criminal.
Coughlin
>Perhaps, but more often than not, it encourages murder by the direct
>brutalisation of society.
This connection is far from well established. If it were true, one might
expect a rash of crimes in which the murderers attempt to mimic the death
penalty process: trial, system of appeals, and death by lethal injection.
Instead, virtually all murders occur by other means (gun, knife, etc).
Because the connection is not obvious, to make this case, you need to
provide a mechanism and substantiate it with compelling evidence (adequate
sample, double blind evaluation). That hasn't happened.
lord...@aol.com
In article <c+ka0dA9...@maudit.demon.co.uk>, "Mr Desmond E. Coughlan"
<D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk>, in a dialog with intphase and others,
writes:
intphase
>>In all of history not one repeat offender. Not one. Ever. Never.
>>
>>So what silly liberal yappee yuppies can say the DP is not a deterrent?
>>
>>There is no recidivism. Not one etc.
Coughlin
>Ho hum!! I suppose that when one is dealing with someone of supremely
>limited intelligence, then one is obliged to make things simple . . .
intphase
>>So stop saying stupid things like it is not a deterrent. It is!
Coughlin
>No, child: it is NOT.
>
>To deter someone would mean killing a criminal to prevent others
>committing the same crime (and since released murderers have just about
>the lowest rate of recidivism of any criminal group, it is fatuous in
>the extreme to retort with 'But it stops the murderer doing it again!!)
Fatuous in your mind... but very, very true.
More Coughlin
>The fact is that inflicting the death penalty on a criminal only serves
>to make other potential murderers identify with the state as an agent of
>death. Thus, it is a scientific fact that states which execute
>criminals show an increase in the murder rate immediately after the
>execution.
In a few places, such has been shown. In other places, the opposite has
been shown. No compelling evidence (adequate sample, double blind
evaluation) has been shown one way or the other. Conservation of momentum
is a scientific fact. The basis for your claim is-- shall we say--
considerably less than ironclad?
Coughlin
>Don't believe me: just keep on killing criminals, and keep having sky
>high murder rates, and keep killing more criminals, and have even higher
>murder rates, and keep killing more criminals, and have yet higher
>murder rates, and keep killing criminals, and . . . .
Is it, then, your considered position that refraining from the few hundred
judicial executions that take place annually will make a significant dent
in the ~20,000 homicides that occur in the USA annually? What compelling
evidence can you offer?
Coughlin
>Or say to yourselves, "This has to stop. Let's break the cycle of
violence."
>
>Unfortunately, this sort of thinking is at present way beyond the
>reasoning power of 99 % of Americans. One day, perhaps. . .
You seem to be playing fast and loose with numbers. Do you truly believe
that only 1% of all Americans have adequate reasoning power. How have you
defined the metric? How do you measure it? How have you obtained and
tested your sample, and how big is it? For that matter, is 1% all who
oppose the death penalty? Or do the other opponents lack reasoning
ability and oppose it for (presumably) the wrong reasons? Or do you
simply enjoy insulting members of your own side in this debate?
John Spragge
On 7 Dec 1996 04:58:45 GMT, lord...@aol.com wrote:
[ on the "brutalisation" effect ]
> If it were true, one might
>expect a rash of crimes in which the murderers attempt to mimic the death
>penalty process: trial, system of appeals, and death by lethal injection.
Most criminals lack the resources for a system of trials, or the setup
required for a lethal injection. However, a distinct class of murders
exists popularly termed "executions", since they share many of the
same characteristics of judicial executions: the deliberate merciless
killing of someone whom an authority has deemed unfit to live.
Interestingly, while the major characteristics of judicial
imprisonment would count as mitigating factors in a kidnapping,
most of the dedining features in a judicial execution count as
aggravating factors in the case of murder.
>Because the connection is not obvious, to make this case, you need to
>provide a mechanism and substantiate it with compelling evidence (adequate
>sample, double blind evaluation). That hasn't happened.
Morality forbids the application of "scientific method" tests such as
double-blind evaluation to executions. In lieu of such tests, we have
to rely on the the record; and the historical record does not show
much effect for executions.
Your point calls for two other comments: first, your assumption that
"counter-intuitive" conclusions require more evidence to back them up
than ones considered intuitively obvious has no compelling historical
evidence to back it up, since many assumptions people once considered
"obvious" have proven wrong. And in this case, emotional bias
complicates reliance on intuition; in my experience, most of the
people who have argued for the idea of deterrence as "obvious" or
"common sense" have favoured capital punishment.
J. G. Spragge ========================================================
John Spragge
John Spragge
lord...@aol.com
In article <32a91983...@news.itd.umich.edu>, spr...@umich.edu (John
Spragge), in a dialog with Lord Clane, writes:
Clane
[ on the "brutalisation" effect ]
>If it were true, one might
>>expect a rash of crimes in which the murderers attempt to mimic the
death
>>penalty process: trial, system of appeals, and death by lethal
injection.
Spragge
>Most criminals lack the resources for a system of trials, or the setup
>required for a lethal injection.
Even those who do have the resources don't bother. It's too inefficient a
means for accomplishing their lethal purpose, wouldn't have sufficiently
high probability of accomplishing the murder, and, in any case, takes too
long with too much possibility for judicial interuption... and I suspect
Spragge knows it.
More Spragge
>However, a distinct class of murders
>exists popularly termed "executions", since they share many of the
>same characteristics of judicial executions: the deliberate merciless
>killing of someone whom an authority has deemed unfit to live.
More obvious nonsense. The popular press may call them "executions" but,
for example, judicial executions are designed to be as merciful as
possible, not merciless.
The analogy that Spragge is attempting to draw is, I believe, between
contract killings and judicial execution, in that, in both cases, the
immediate executioner has no personal motive for murder other than
direction from a "higher authority" he or she happpens to recognize and
the nominal relentlessness of the homicidal process. In fact, within the
mini-society embodied in whatever organization to which the contract
killer belongs, such contract killings are not murder. However, within
the society at large which most of us recognize and belong, they are such
because they violate statutory law. I also note the enormous differences
between so-called "executions" or contract killings and state-implemented
judicial executions. Other than the sanctity of law, the vast, defining
difference is the due process-- including mandatory use in compliance with
existing statutes, trial, appeals process, etc.
Spragge
>Interestingly, while the major characteristics of judicial
>imprisonment would count as mitigating factors in a kidnapping,
>most of the dedining features in a judicial execution count as
>aggravating factors in the case of murder.
You've lost me here. What factors do you have in mind? The use of
firearms? Perhaps the elements of conspiracy, but that seems a bit of a
stretch. What point are you trying to make?
Clane
>>Because the connection is not obvious, to make this case, you need to
>>provide a mechanism and substantiate it with compelling evidence
(adequate
>>sample, double blind evaluation). That hasn't happened.
Spragge
>Morality forbids the application of "scientific method" tests such as
>double-blind evaluation to executions. In lieu of such tests, we have
>to rely on the the record; and the historical record does not show
>much effect for executions.
Exactly the same case is made to support the existence of psychic
phenomena: i.e., since we can't get good evidence, we must accept bad
evidence. No good scientist will buy into that approach.
More Spragge
>Your point calls for two other comments: first, your assumption that
>"counter-intuitive" conclusions require more evidence to back them up
>than ones considered intuitively obvious has no compelling historical
>evidence to back it up, since many assumptions people once considered
>"obvious" have proven wrong.
Of course intuitive conclusions can be in error. However, they are often
very accurate. After all, our capacity for intuition has been honed by
millenia of "survival of the fittest" evolution (or granted by God, if you
have a religous bent). Demanding good evidence before believing
counter-intuitive statements is very sensible... and I suspect that you
follow this practice yourself when your particular argument isn;t at
stake. If not, we can all have a lot of fun with you reporting invasions
from Mars, the finding of a Philosopher's Stone, and the like.
More Spragge
>And in this case, emotional bias
>complicates reliance on intuition; in my experience, most of the
>people who have argued for the idea of deterrence as "obvious" or
>"common sense" have favoured capital punishment.
There is a message here....