Death Penalty
Knigh...@webtv.net
Hello. I just stumbled across this page and read thru it. Rather long.
I'm just joining, so if I cover anything that has already benn covered,
I'm sorry. Yes, I do believe in the DP and feel it should be
carried out immediantly. You commit a crime, what do you have to fear?
Not much. Give you something to fear and the crime rate will go down.
Where else can a crimanal break into somebody's house, fall down the
stairs, and sue the homeowner for damages. A rapist rapes your wife and
you kill him, you face legal procecution and a wrongful death suit from
his family. Our laws state that we can not have cruel or unusual
punishment. We have cruel and unusual criminals running around today.
Yet, everyone is innocent or has a medical problem. If we carried out
executions within days instead of years, that would give the criminals
something to think about. Yes, one or two innocent people may die, but
that is a small price to pay for the safety of our children, our
families, ourselves. Enact the DP the first time on violent crimes, all
other crimes, the third time you are convicted, no questions. Is that TV
worth dying for when you have two strikes against you already? I hope so
(or not)
prcr...@no.spam
In article <6dt27r$t8n$1...@newsd-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
"Page?" Sorry, my friend, but this is a *newsgroup*. Then again,
you're posting from WebTV, so perhaps you shouldn't be expected to
have the slightest idea of what you're babbling about.
>I'm just joining, so if I cover anything that has already benn covered,
>I'm sorry.
Yes, God forbid that you should actually read through the newsgroup
for a while first before posting your subliterate rant.
> Yes, I do believe in the DP and feel it should be
>carried out immediantly.
What a surprise.
>You commit a crime, what do you have to fear?
>Not much.
Well, if being prosecuted and possibly getting a long jail term
is "not much," then I wonder what you do fear.
>Give you something to fear and the crime rate will go down.
>Where else can a crimanal break into somebody's house, fall down the
>stairs, and sue the homeowner for damages. A rapist rapes your wife and
>you kill him, you face legal procecution and a wrongful death suit from
>his family.
Paranoid, unsubstantiated, urban-legend nonsense.
>Our laws state that we can not have cruel or unusual
>punishment. We have cruel and unusual criminals running around today.
>Yet, everyone is innocent or has a medical problem.
Maybe you should try getting your information about our justice
system from a source other than the _G. Gordon Liddy Show_.
>If we carried out
>executions within days instead of years, that would give the criminals
>something to think about.
Not to mention killing a lot of innocents as well.
>Yes, one or two innocent people may die, but
>that is a small price to pay for the safety of our children, our
>families, ourselves.
Yeah, and I'm sure that if *you* turned out to be one of these
innocents, you'd go gracefully and uncomplainingly to your wrongful
execution, content with the knowledge that your life was a "small
price to pay" to keep John Q. Suburb feeling safe from all those
platoons of violent child-molesting monsters roaming around out there.
>Enact the DP the first time on violent crimes, all
>other crimes, the third time you are convicted, no questions. Is that TV
>worth dying for when you have two strikes against you already? I hope so
>(or not)
Hell, let's just nuke the ghettoes. That'll cut down the crime rate
too, I bet. Fuck due process! It's just one o dem librill pinko
commie murder-loving social policies!
--
Patrick Crotty
e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
home page: http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/prcrotty
euro15jb
From an empiric point of view, I believe it has been proved that death
penalty has no effect. One can't say that places where death penalty is
enforced are safer in any way than places where there is no death penalty. I
am not American, so I don't have lots of statistics to refer to, but while
having executed murderers for many years, one can still notice that places
like Texas or Florida still have murders (even more than in other places).
Death penalty even didn't prevent this silly guy to put a bomb in a public
place in Oklahoma. So I take it for proved that death penalty has never
helped reduce crime, and that's just the reason why some of you spend time
arguing about it.
The reason for that is that death penalty has no preventive effect on
murder. If supporters of death penalty had studied one ounce of criminology,
they would know that a murder will kill, whether there is death penalty or
not. Have you ever thought what the mobiles of crime can be?
The truth is that every human being is a potential killer. Nobody can say
for sure "I'll never kill my neighbor". Or then he's a liar. As no one can
predict his future, you cannot say that fate will never put you under
circumstances where you get transformed into a murderer. Of course there are
murders with premeditation (death penalty is nothing else than murder with
premeditation, even though it consists in murdering a murderer). But there
are also murders motivated by hazard (you kill someone by accident or
negligence, without meaning to kill: cf. the GI who crashed 20 people in
Italy some days ago), or you kill someone you know because of jealousy (you
discover that your wife or husband has a lover and you kill him/her/both).
So look at yourself in a mirror: how can you be sure that you won't murder
someone before 1998 is over?
So instead of trying to solve criminality by death penalty, you might ask
yourself why Europe has a lower criminality than the USA and does not apply
death penalty. And think about the problem of fire arms in the USA. :)
David Proctor
Did you really have to be so abusive, Patrick? It just puts you in the same
category as him!
Regards
David Proctor
dap...@bigfoot.com
prcr...@no.spam wrote in message ...
David Proctor
euro15jb wrote in message <6dtpbp$d1o$1...@news3.isdnet.net>...
>
>From an empiric point of view, I believe it has been proved that death
>penalty has no effect.
Not true - one could say that it satiates society's desire for revenge, and
prevents members of society from attempting to take the law into their own
hands, knowing that, if the crime warrants the DP, then the DP will,
eventually, be imposed. Whether satisfying this desire for revenge is a good
thing or not is a matter for debate, however.
> One can't say that places where death penalty is
>enforced are safer in any way than places where there is no death penalty.
I
>am not American, so I don't have lots of statistics to refer to, but while
>having executed murderers for many years, one can still notice that places
>like Texas or Florida still have murders (even more than in other places).
Perhaps if the imposition of the penalty was swift and certain, an argument
could (but maybe not) ne advanced that it may act as a deterrent - in
England in the 1940's and 50's, when Albert Pierrepoint was the chief
hangman, the condemned were executed within three weeks of sentencing.
>Death penalty even didn't prevent this silly guy to put a bomb in a public
>place in Oklahoma. So I take it for proved that death penalty has never
>helped reduce crime, and that's just the reason why some of you spend time
>arguing about it.
True - most violent crimes are committed either whilst the offender is under
the influence of drugs, alcohol or both, or in the throes of passions - in
all of these cases, the existence of the DP would not have prevented the
crime, as the offender was not in a lucid enough state to consider the
consequences.
>The reason for that is that death penalty has no preventive effect on
>murder. If supporters of death penalty had studied one ounce of
criminology,
>they would know that a murder will kill, whether there is death penalty or
>not. Have you ever thought what the mobiles of crime can be?
>
>The truth is that every human being is a potential killer. Nobody can say
>for sure "I'll never kill my neighbor". Or then he's a liar. As no one can
>predict his future, you cannot say that fate will never put you under
>circumstances where you get transformed into a murderer. Of course there
are
>murders with premeditation (death penalty is nothing else than murder with
>premeditation, even though it consists in murdering a murderer). But there
>are also murders motivated by hazard (you kill someone by accident or
>negligence, without meaning to kill: cf. the GI who crashed 20 people in
>Italy some days ago), or you kill someone you know because of jealousy (you
>discover that your wife or husband has a lover and you kill him/her/both).
>So look at yourself in a mirror: how can you be sure that you won't murder
>someone before 1998 is over?
>
>So instead of trying to solve criminality by death penalty, you might ask
>yourself why Europe has a lower criminality than the USA and does not apply
>death penalty. And think about the problem of fire arms in the USA. :)
You raised some very good points - but I would submit that the whole system
should be overhauled - appoint MORE justices to the Supreme Court - have
three of the Supreme Court justices hear the appeal against verdict and
sentence - then have seven judges hear the habeus appeal. There would only
be two stages in the appeals process.
The execution would then be carried out - swiftly and surely. The cost of
executing would then be considerably cheaper than LWOP. Because my basic
support for the DP is that I dont want my taxes paying to feed and house
this scum for the rest of their days, like we currently do in Australia.
Regards
David Proctor
dap...@bigfoot.com
JIGSAW1695
Subject: Re: Death Penalty
From: "euro15jb" <euro...@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 8, 1998 04:44 EST
Message-id: <6dtpbp$d1o$1...@news3.isdnet.net>
From an empiric point of view, I believe it has been proved that death penalty
has no effect. One can't say that places where death penalty is enforced are
safer in any way than places where there is no death penalty. I am not
American, so I don't have lots of statistics to refer to, but while having
executed murderers for many years, one can still notice that places like Texas
or Florida still have murders (even more than in other places). Death penalty
even didn't prevent this silly guy to put a bomb in a public
place in Oklahoma. So I take it for proved that death penalty has never helped
reduce crime, and that's just the reason why some of you spend time arguing
about it.
The reason for that is that death penalty has no preventive effect on murder.
If supporters of death penalty had studied one ounce of criminology, they would
know that a murder will kill, whether there is death penalty or not. Have you
ever thought what the mobiles of crime can be?
The truth is that every human being is a potential killer. Nobody can say for
sure "I'll never kill my neighbor". Or then he's a liar. As no one can predict
his future, you cannot say that fate will never put you under circumstances
where you get transformed into a murderer. Of course there are murders with
premeditation (death penalty is nothing else than murder with premeditation,
even though it consists in murdering a murderer). But there
are also murders motivated by hazard (you kill someone by accident or
negligence, without meaning to kill: cf. the GI who crashed 20 people in Italy
some days ago), or you kill someone you know because of jealousy (you discover
that your wife or husband has a lover and you kill him/her/both).
So look at yourself in a mirror: how can you be sure that you won't murder
someone before 1998 is over?
So instead of trying to solve criminality by death penalty, you might ask
yourself why Europe has a lower criminality than the USA and does not apply
death penalty. And think about the problem of fire arms in the USA. :)
==================================
Euro.....tell me why you think something that works in Europe will work in
America? Are you that arrogent that you refuse to acknowledge that everyone is
different, and that we have different standards?
Maybe if we compared individual countries on a factored basis we would come up
with a different picture about the crime rate. Then we can discuss our criminal
justice system with the criminal jsutice system in that country and see if
there are any major differences.
I dont see you arguing the differences between Europe and say Saudia Arabia. I
would say that the differences are much more than sand than sand or the
administration of the death penalty.
And when you say "Europe" are you speaking for every European country ,
everywhere? Why dont you compare you country to ours. Then we can start a real
lively debate though it is not relevant to the DP.
One of the things we can look at is just how many of your fellow countrymen
have immigrated to the US in the past ten years, versus how many Americans have
emigrated from America to your country?
I also would like to point out that almost all reasonable, realistic
authorities in this country agree that it is almost impossible to determine if
the DP is does or does not lessen or increase the crime rate. It is an
argument that has proven itself irrelevant at best.
Since the majority of citizens in this country realize that the death penalty
is necessary, it will continue in to be an acceptable means of the
adminisratation of justice and a just sentence for a the terrible crime of
murder.
So, my friend, please identify exactly which country you are from, and what
authority you have to speak for all European countries.
Your staments about comparing an act of premediated murder with a spontaneous
murder commited by inflammed passion shows how little you know about our
criminal procedure.
Tell me why, in your opinion, some convicted killers get the death penalty and
some do not. For the sake of discussion, we will consider only those cases
which are post Furman (After the Furman decision of 1974). If you dont know
anything about the Furman case, than you have absolutly no insite into how our
system works, and have no right to condem our application of the law.
Tell me Euro, name at least two of the conditions that must exist before a
convicted killer can legally be subjected to consideration of the death
penalty. ( There are far more than 2, by the way).
If you are interested in learning a bit more about our system of justice, I
suggest that you read the following four documents. They explain the legal
reasoning behind the use of the death penalty. All of these documents can be
pulled down from the internet by using your search engine:
They are :
1. The Constitution of the United States.
2. Furman versus the State of Georgia.
3. Gregg versus the State of Georgia.
4. Herrera versus the State of Texas.
Numbers 2,3 & 4 run about fifteen to twenty pages long. They are not easy
reading,
The Constitution is about five pages long. Its language is rather simple and
direct. The intepretation of the this Scripture of Democracy is why we have our
court system linked with the Executive and Legislative branch of
goverenment.
I dont expect you to understand how all of this ties together. But if you read
the above named documents, you may actually start to learn why this is such
dynamic country, why we are so much different that you and why some long-ago
relation packed his bags and left for America.
Yours in Liberal Solidarity,
Jigsaw
intp...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: I'm sorry. Yes, I do believe in the DP and feel it should be
: carried out immediantly. You commit a crime, what do you have to fear?
Actually they get cafeterias, gymnasiums, horseback riding lessons, golf
lessons, free education, medicare, guaranteed rights, lots of great
expensive goodies.
: Give you something to fear and the crime rate will go down.
: Where else can a crimanal break into somebody's house, fall down the
: stairs, and sue the homeowner for damages. A rapist rapes your wife and
: you kill him, you face legal procecution and a wrongful death suit from
: his family.
Stop making sense and telling the truth.
: Our laws state that we can not have cruel or unusual
: punishment. We have cruel and unusual criminals running around today.
The victims of crime would dearly love the same right!
: Yet, everyone is innocent or has a medical problem.
Yep, Yep ! Full moon, chemical imbalance, sleepwalking, bad hair day!
: If we carried out
: executions within days instead of years, that would give the criminals
: something to think about. Yes, one or two innocent people may die, but
: that is a small price to pay for the safety of our children, our
: families, ourselves. Enact the DP the first time on violent crimes, all
Use sodium pentothal to make sure !
If I were innocent and accused, I would insist!
: other crimes, the third time you are convicted, no questions. Is that TV
: worth dying for when you have two strikes against you already? I hope so
: (or not)
Stop that ! You are making sense!
--
THOSE WHO WOULD DEFEND EVIL Lawyers are slimy pale things,
SURELY BECOME EVIL THEMSELVES that live in dark, evil places
AND NOT SIMPLY AT THE PRICE and flinch from the light of
OF THEIR OWN SOULS INTPHASE justice and decency.
prcr...@no.spam
In article <6dtskl$dus$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>,
David Proctor <dap...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Did you really have to be so abusive, Patrick? It just puts you in the same
>category as him!
I guess I've always had this visceral aversion to any post
from "webtv.net".
euro15jb
JIGSAW1695 wrote in message
<19980308110...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>Subject: Re: Death Penalty
>From: "euro15jb" <euro...@hotmail.com>
>Date: Sun, Mar 8, 1998 04:44 EST
>Message-id: <6dtpbp$d1o$1...@news3.isdnet.net>
>
>
>Euro.....tell me why you think something that works in Europe will work in
>America? Are you that arrogent that you refuse to acknowledge that everyone
is
>different, and that we have different standards?
I'm glad to hear that from an American. As a matter of fact, Americans are
often perceived as people who think that what works in the US is good for
the others. So I would automatically think that the contrary is true too:).
After all, the problem of death penalty is a matter of human rights (refer
to what I say below about the Council of Europe) and human rights are true
for every man everywhere regarless of borders.
>
>Maybe if we compared individual countries on a factored basis we would come
up
>with a different picture about the crime rate. Then we can discuss our
criminal
>justice system with the criminal jsutice system in that country and see if
>there are any major differences.
>
>I dont see you arguing the differences between Europe and say Saudia
Arabia. I
>would say that the differences are much more than sand than sand or the
>administration of the death penalty.
Saudi Arabia has death penalty. On this topic, one should rather compare it
to the USA.
>
>And when you say "Europe" are you speaking for every European country ,
>everywhere? Why dont you compare you country to ours. Then we can start a
real
>lively debate though it is not relevant to the DP.
I speak for Europe as a whole, because all the European countries abolished
death penalty by law or de facto. And most of them signed the 6th Protocol
to the Convention of Safeguard of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of
the Council of Europe (the convention was signed in 1950) which forbids
death penalty (this protocol was signed on April 28th 1983). So I don't need
to say my nationality. I used to say it before but it turned out that some
people bashed. As you post regularly messages on this ng, you must have
noticed that Europeans are against death penalty regardless of borders. On
that matter, one can say there is a European public opinion.
>One of the things we can look at is just how many of your fellow countrymen
>have immigrated to the US in the past ten years, versus how many Americans
have
>emigrated from America to your country?
Do you mean to say that criminality is bound to immigration? I wouldn't
follow you on this point. Anyway, don't believe that Western Europe has no
immigration. On the past 10 years, I'm even certain that no Western European
has emigrated to the USA. But on the contrary Western Europe has to receive
lots of people from Eastern Europe, North Africa and the middle East. Did
you hear about the boat peoples of Kurds from Iraq that landed in Southern
Italy in Dec. 97 and Jan. 98? Do you remember that there are several
millions of Muslims in countries like France, Germany, Great-Britain? Do you
know that in the summer 1995, France was once again struck by a wave of
terrorist actions performed by Algerians?
>I also would like to point out that almost all reasonable, realistic
>authorities in this country agree that it is almost impossible to determine
if
>the DP is does or does not lessen or increase the crime rate. It is an
>argument that has proven itself irrelevant at best.
That's exactly what I say. So you should correct our friend Knighthorse when
he says that death penalty contributes to refraining murderers from killing.
>Since the majority of citizens in this country realize that the death
penalty
>is necessary, it will continue in to be an acceptable means of the
>adminisratation of justice and a just sentence for a the terrible crime of
>murder.
A majority, are you certain? I believe there are about 13 states where death
penalty is abolished. And lots of people who send here messages are
Americans and disagree.
>So, my friend, please identify exactly which country you are from, and what
>authority you have to speak for all European countries.
>
I am a Western European diplomat. And what is your authority to speak in the
name of the majority of Americans?
>Your staments about comparing an act of premediated murder with a
spontaneous
>murder commited by inflammed passion shows how little you know about our
>criminal procedure.
>
>Tell me why, in your opinion, some convicted killers get the death penalty
and
>some do not. For the sake of discussion, we will consider only those cases
>which are post Furman (After the Furman decision of 1974). If you dont know
>anything about the Furman case, than you have absolutly no insite into how
our
>system works, and have no right to condem our application of the law.
I posted several messages saying that death penalty is unjustifiable from an
ethic and philosophic point. On that regard, I don't need to know anything
about American procedure to condemn it. It is as an irrelevant argument as
would be the argument of China about human rights being senseless
considering the Chinese culture.
OK, I will read all this and try to understand how it works and why
something that is wrong in Europe is justice in the USA. In exchange, I ask
you to read this:
-- "An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the
privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death a
rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization
which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death.
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 (or "years", ed.). Such a monster is not encountered in public life!"
- Albert Camus, The myth of Sisyphus (Nobel Prize of Literature, 1957)
.........
And to reply to another message I posted on this ng (under another nickname)
saying how the last execution in my country (a 26-year-old guy who was
accused of murder) turned out to be the execution of an innocent.
Your Name Here
On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 22:45:09 +0100, euro15jb (euro...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>>Tell me Euro, name at least two of the conditions that must exist before
>a
>>convicted killer can legally be subjected to consideration of the death
>>penalty. ( There are far more than 2, by the way).
Did anyone else notice that Euro just decided to skip this question altogether?
It appears that Euro, like the vast majority of the whining Europeans who post
here, isn't familiar with the definition of "capital murder."
--
For e-mail replies, change the utx$v$ to utxsvs
JIGSAW1695
Subject: Re: Death Penalty
From: sikkid@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu (Your Name Here)
Date: Sun, Mar 8, 1998 18:06 EST
Message-id: <6dv89i$4k0$3...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
=======================
Im afraid you are right. Euro dosent have the slighest idea what the
applications of the law are, so :
EURO, WE ARE WAITING........
Jigsaw
Rev. Don Kool
That Patty Crotty is such an accommodating fellow to new posters.
Then again, posting from the University of Chicago, perhaps he
shouldn't be expected to have the slightest idea what he's babbling
about.
Hope this helps,
Don
prcr...@no.spam wrote:
<Knigh...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >Hello. I just stumbled across this page and read thru it. Rather long.
>
> "Page?" Sorry, my friend, but this is a *newsgroup*. Then again,
> you're posting from WebTV, so perhaps you shouldn't be expected to
> have the slightest idea of what you're babbling about.
>
> >I'm just joining, so if I cover anything that has already benn covered,
> >I'm sorry.
>
> Yes, God forbid that you should actually read through the newsgroup
> for a while first before posting your subliterate rant.
>
> > Yes, I do believe in the DP and feel it should be
> >carried out immediantly.
>
> What a surprise.
>
> >You commit a crime, what do you have to fear?
> >Not much.
>
> Well, if being prosecuted and possibly getting a long jail term
> is "not much," then I wonder what you do fear.
>
> >Give you something to fear and the crime rate will go down.
> >Where else can a crimanal break into somebody's house, fall down the
> >stairs, and sue the homeowner for damages. A rapist rapes your wife and
> >you kill him, you face legal procecution and a wrongful death suit from
> >his family.
>
> Paranoid, unsubstantiated, urban-legend nonsense.
>
> >Our laws state that we can not have cruel or unusual
> >punishment. We have cruel and unusual criminals running around today.
> >Yet, everyone is innocent or has a medical problem.
>
> Maybe you should try getting your information about our justice
> system from a source other than the _G. Gordon Liddy Show_.
>
> >If we carried out
> >executions within days instead of years, that would give the criminals
> >something to think about.
>
> Not to mention killing a lot of innocents as well.
>
> >Yes, one or two innocent people may die, but
> >that is a small price to pay for the safety of our children, our
> >families, ourselves.
>
> Yeah, and I'm sure that if *you* turned out to be one of these
> innocents, you'd go gracefully and uncomplainingly to your wrongful
> execution, content with the knowledge that your life was a "small
> price to pay" to keep John Q. Suburb feeling safe from all those
> platoons of violent child-molesting monsters roaming around out there.
>
> >Enact the DP the first time on violent crimes, all
> >other crimes, the third time you are convicted, no questions. Is that TV
> >worth dying for when you have two strikes against you already? I hope so
> >(or not)
>
> Hell, let's just nuke the ghettoes. That'll cut down the crime rate
> too, I bet. Fuck due process! It's just one o dem librill pinko
> commie murder-loving social policies!
>
> --
> Patrick Crotty
> e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
> home page: http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/prcrotty
--
********************** My juice is sweet like Georgia peaches
* Rev. Don McDonald * Women suck it up like leeches
* Baltimore, MD * ---- FREAKNASTY
********************** "Da' Dip"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
Rev. Don Kool
> >Did you really have to be so abusive, Patrick? It just puts you in the same
> >category as him!
> I guess I've always had this visceral aversion to any post
> from "webtv.net".
I get the same feeling when I see yet another naive ".edu" post.
Hope this helps,
Don
Joaquim Amado Lopes
Greetings.
On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 22:45:09 +0100, "euro15jb" <euro...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
(...)
>As you post regularly messages on this ng, you must have
>noticed that Europeans are against death penalty regardless of borders. On
>that matter, one can say there is a European public opinion.
>
I am an European and I am pro-DP. Many people I talk to (also
Europeans) are pro-DP. In fact, some even say that DP is not enough
for some murderers.
If there is an European public opinion, my guess is that it says that
our aproach on crime and punishment isn't working and that something
has to change.
You probably listen to politicians when they make those fancy speeches
about humanism and human rights. Those politicians have police
officers guarding their homes and travel in bullet-proof cars
surrounded by bodyguards. They hardly speak for the common people.
>-- "An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the
>privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death a
>rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization
>which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death.
>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 (or "years", ed.). Such a monster is not encountered in public life!"
>
>- Albert Camus, The myth of Sisyphus (Nobel Prize of Literature, 1957)
>
Check the site "Justice for All" and read about some violent crimes
commited in the United States. Then, read the quote from Albert Camus
again.
(...)
>(under another nickname)
>
Why don't you use your own name?
(...)
Take care,
Joaquim
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Joaquim Amado Lopes
jal...@jalopes.com ............ http://www.jalopes.com
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"If the only tool we have is a hammer, we tend to see all
problems as nails."
Abraham Maslow (teacher USA 1908-1970)
Knigh...@webtv.net
Why are we still so worried about a killers legal and civil rights? What
about the victims right to live? A killer does not fear a long jail
sentance. You go rob a bank, you can get a longer sentance. The only
problem with the DP is that it is not carried out often enough or fast
enough
Desmond Coughlan
jal...@jalopes.com.no_spam (Joaquim Amado Lopes) writes:
> >As you post regularly messages on this ng, you must have
> >noticed that Europeans are against death penalty regardless of borders. On
> >that matter, one can say there is a European public opinion.
> I am an European and I am pro-DP. Many people I talk to (also
> Europeans) are pro-DP. In fact, some even say that DP is not enough
> for some murderers.
Sorry to disappoint you, Joaquim, but you are in the minority. Most
Europeans are anti-death penalty. Whenever there is a particularly
gruesome murder, support usually rises, but as thankfully, this is
still a rare occurence in Europe, most people recongise the death
penalty for what it is: an abomination.
> If there is an European public opinion, my guess is that it says that
> our aproach on crime and punishment isn't working and that something
> has to change.
What do you suggest, Joaquim? The American approach? Is *that*
"working"?
Most people who express outrage at a murderer being released (for
example) ten years after his crimes, are vocal in their demands for
longer sentences, rather than for the death penalty.
> You probably listen to politicians when they make those fancy speeches
> about humanism and human rights.
Those "fancy speeches" represent rights and privileges which protect
*all* of us, Joaquim. I don't know if you've noticed, but politicians
aren't generally what one would describe as caring individuals. If they
thought that they could bump off murderers, lower the crime rate,
protect the innocent, and thus make themselves extremely popular with
the electorate, then they would do so. However, the fact is that every
country that has ever inflicted the death penalty, has executed
individuals who were wholly innocent of the crimes for which they lost
their lives. Those nations which still inflict the death penalty
(China, Iraq, Iran, the United States, etc) have executed innocents
within the last decade, and will continue to do so until a) human
beings achieve perfection in their justice systems; or b) the death
penalty is abolished.
> Those politicians have police
> officers guarding their homes and travel in bullet-proof cars
> surrounded by bodyguards. They hardly speak for the common people.
In theory, they do, and I feel sure that if a Portugese politician
expressed support for the death penalty, you would claim that he spoke
for "the common people", irrespective of whether he travelled in an
armoured car, etc, or not.
It's what one refers to as a double standard.
It's often claimed here on the newsgroup that politicians in the
United States rarely campaign on the death penalty. Tell that to
Texans who remember former Governor Mark White's election campaign in
1990, during which he walked through a display of huge photographs of
people executed during his term. Or the Attorney General, Jim
Mattox's somewhat unseemly claim that *he* was responsible for the
executions, and the people should elect *him*. Or the Republican
candidate's (Clayton Williams) nauseating assertion that the planned
expansion of the death penalty (to include non-lethal crimes) was the
"way to make Texas great again".
(Source: "Millions Misspent: What Politicians don't say about the Death
Penalty", DPIC October 1992)
[Camus quotation snipped]
> Check the site "Justice for All" and read about some violent crimes
> commited in the United States. Then, read the quote from Albert Camus
> again.
I've done both, Joaquim. Perhaps you could remind of us the murderer
who kept his victim or victims locked up for years, all the time
informing them of the time and manner of their deaths.
That is, after all, the gist of what Camus said.
> >(under another nickname)
> Why don't you use your own name?
Perhaps the poster wants to avoid the death threats, complaints to his
employer/university, and general harassing that I encountered. Who
can blame him? After all, that's the general response from certain
pro state-murder posters, when they find themselves unable to argue
using logic and common sense.
--
Desmond Coughlan
dcou...@pratique.fr
http://www.pratique.fr/~dcoughla/
prcr...@no.spam
In article <3504013B...@home.com>, Rev. Don Kool <old...@home.com> wrote:
>That Patty Crotty is such an accommodating fellow to new posters.
>Then again, posting from the University of Chicago, perhaps he
>shouldn't be expected to have the slightest idea what he's babbling
>about.
You obviously are unaware of how ridiculous the above paragraph looks.
euro15jb
Joaquim Amado Lopes wrote in message <3504149...@news.telepac.pt>...
>Greetings.
>
>On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 22:45:09 +0100, "euro15jb" <euro...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>(...)
>>As you post regularly messages on this ng, you must have
>>noticed that Europeans are against death penalty regardless of borders. On
>>that matter, one can say there is a European public opinion.
>>
>I am an European and I am pro-DP. Many people I talk to (also
>Europeans) are pro-DP. In fact, some even say that DP is not enough
>for some murderers.
>If there is an European public opinion, my guess is that it says that
>our aproach on crime and punishment isn't working and that something
>has to change.
I'm all but certain that a referendum over death penalty in any European
country would lead to rehabilitate it.
>You probably listen to politicians when they make those fancy speeches
>about humanism and human rights. Those politicians have police
>officers guarding their homes and travel in bullet-proof cars
>surrounded by bodyguards. They hardly speak for the common people.
I listen to my reason. It is enough for me to consider the problem of death
penalty. Politicians are the representative of the citizens. Only statesmen
have bullet-proof cars and bodyguards. Backbenchers don't, because it's too
expensive for them.
>>-- "An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the
>>privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death
a
>>rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization
>>which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death.
>>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 (or "years", ed.). Such a monster is not encountered in public
life!"
>>
>>- Albert Camus, The myth of Sisyphus (Nobel Prize of Literature, 1957)
>>
>Check the site "Justice for All" and read about some violent crimes
>commited in the United States. Then, read the quote from Albert Camus
>again.
I guess you should also get some informations about Camus' life. He
underwent torture by the Nazis during World War II, and his mother was
murdered during the Algeria war in 1956. By Algerian independantists. And he
has always been an opponent to death penalty. For philosophical and ethical
reasons.
>(...)
>>(under another nickname)
>>
>Why don't you use your own name?
If you read my complete message you should understand why.
Rev. Don Kool
prcr...@no.spam posted off topic:
> Rev. Don Kool <old...@home.com> wrote:
> >That Patty Crotty is such an accommodating fellow to new posters.
> >Then again, posting from the University of Chicago, perhaps he
> >shouldn't be expected to have the slightest idea what he's babbling
> >about.
> You obviously are unaware of how ridiculous the above paragraph looks.
Looks good to me.
prcr...@no.spam
In article <35047A62...@home.com>, Rev. Don Kool <old...@home.com> wrote:
>prcr...@no.spam posted off topic:
>> Rev. Don Kool <old...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> >That Patty Crotty is such an accommodating fellow to new posters.
>> >Then again, posting from the University of Chicago, perhaps he
>> >shouldn't be expected to have the slightest idea what he's babbling
>> >about.
>
>> You obviously are unaware of how ridiculous the above paragraph looks.
>
> Looks good to me.
And thus Don proves my point. . .
Rev. Don Kool
Desi Coughlan wrote:
> jal...@jalopes.com.no_spam (Joaquim Amado Lopes) writes:
[...Desi's fantasy snipped...]
> > You probably listen to politicians when they make those fancy speeches
> > about humanism and human rights.
> Those "fancy speeches" represent rights and privileges which protect
> *all* of us, Joaquim. I don't know if you've noticed, but politicians
> aren't generally what one would describe as caring individuals. If they
> thought that they could bump off murderers, lower the crime rate,
> protect the innocent, and thus make themselves extremely popular with
> the electorate, then they would do so. However, the fact is that every
> country that has ever inflicted the death penalty, has executed
> individuals who were wholly innocent of the crimes for which they lost
> their lives. Those nations which still inflict the death penalty
> (China, Iraq, Iran, the United States, etc) have executed innocents
> within the last decade, and will continue to do so until a) human
> beings achieve perfection in their justice systems; or b) the death
> penalty is abolished.
There has not been even a single case of an "innocent man" being
mistakenly executed in the United States in the modern Death Penalty
era. Please do try to get your facts straight before you post,
Desi. It will save you much future embarrassment.
[...snip...]
> > >(under another nickname)
> > Why don't you use your own name?
> Perhaps the poster wants to avoid the death threats, complaints to his
> employer/university, and general harassing that I encountered. Who
> can blame him? After all, that's the general response from certain
> pro state-murder posters, when they find themselves unable to argue
> using logic and common sense.
Basically another chicken shit.
euro15jb
JIGSAW1695 wrote in message
<19980308234...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
What are you waiting for? I'm not an American and don't see why I should be
submitted to an exam of American law before debating death penalty.
So, Jigsaw, that was the purpose of your question, I know that there are
some conditions before a convicted killer can be sentenced to death penalty.
Fortunately. It remains that death penalty is not supported by a federal law
so the same murderer could be sentenced to death in a state and to another
penalty in another state.
So your point is that death penalty is legal so it's right to enforce it. On
the form you are right to say this. But my point is that death penalty is
not legitimate. On a philosophical and ethical point of view. That is
exactly what I wrote:
"I posted several messages saying that death penalty is unjustifiable from
an
ethic and philosophic point. On that regard, I don't need to know anything
about American procedure to condemn it."
I know that when someone is executed in the USA, the execution is supported
by the law. I am even aware that there is no common point between a
premeditated murder and a murder by accident, and can even recognize that my
argument on this point was wrong. Now the function of a citizen is to look
at a law and wonder whether this law is legitimate or not. There used to be
laws providing that slavery or racial segregation were legal, it doesn't
mean they were legitimate.
So Jigsaw, I appreciate very much your efforts to persuade me that death
penalty is rights just because it is legal. I know it is legal, but my point
is that death penalty is not legitimate. That's my answer to the point you
mentioned.
Now I am waiting your answer to the other points I raised. I regularly post
in the ng an excerpt of Camus and included it in my former message to you
and I'm still waiting for your comments. I also raised some other points:
- does criminality disappear when we apply death penalty? Obviously no, or
else one would know that there is no crime in Texas. On that regard, one
should rather try to see if arms are controlled enough, if the fight against
drugs is efficient, if there should be as much violence on TV as there is.
One could also put more efforts on prevention of crime. I know that all this
supposes to accept more tax. If your point is that it's just cheaper to
execute murderers, there's no talking about that but the question of
legitimacy is still being asked.
- does an execution imply that the society shows more compassion to the
victim's family?
As it seems that death penalty is not an optimal solution (one can see it
even by comparing 2 states of the USA), I don't see its competitive
advantage on long term imprisonment (except if prisons are unsafe and let
people out... if it's the case in the USA, then...). I would even say more:
you can still repair a mistake by freeing someone who was unduly imprisoned
and give him a good compensation. In case this someone was executed... by
the way, what happens then? Does someone call the family of the executed and
apologize?
Your Name Here
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:47:15 +0100, euro15jb (euro...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>>Im afraid you are right. Euro dosent have the slighest idea what the
>>applications of the law are, so :
>>
>> EURO, WE ARE WAITING........
>>
>>
>>Jigsaw
>
>What are you waiting for? I'm not an American and don't see why I should be
>submitted to an exam of American law before debating death penalty.
Um...gee...maybe it has something to do with the fact that you need to
understand something before you debate the propriety of it. I'm not going to
attack you, since you've at least been honest about the fact that you don't
know what crimes the death penalty is used for. Nobody's asking you to be
familiar with the laws dealing with trespassing or prostitution -- but if
you're going to debate this issue, you should at least be familiar with the
definition of capital murder and the difference between the other types of
homicide and capital murder.
>So, Jigsaw, that was the purpose of your question, I know that there are
>some conditions before a convicted killer can be sentenced to death penalty.
That's better than a lot of people -- but it's really not enough. I've posted
the Texas statute that defines capital murder -- why don't you see if you can
find it on Dejanews? It's also available on many WWW sites.
[snip]
euro15jb
Your Name Here wrote in message <6e5if6$cgh$2...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...
>On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:47:15 +0100, euro15jb (euro...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
>>>Im afraid you are right. Euro dosent have the slighest idea what the
>>>applications of the law are, so :
>>>
>>> EURO, WE ARE WAITING........
>>>
>>>
>>>Jigsaw
>>
>>What are you waiting for? I'm not an American and don't see why I should
be
>>submitted to an exam of American law before debating death penalty.
>
>Um...gee...maybe it has something to do with the fact that you need to
>understand something before you debate the propriety of it. I'm not going
to
>attack you, since you've at least been honest about the fact that you don't
>know what crimes the death penalty is used for. Nobody's asking you to be
>familiar with the laws dealing with trespassing or prostitution -- but if
>you're going to debate this issue, you should at least be familiar with the
>definition of capital murder and the difference between the other types of
>homicide and capital murder.
I know that. If it was the only purpose of the question, I think it wasn't
worth asking it. I almost believed that there was a language subtility I
couldn't understand. I can suppose that killing someone with premeditation
is quite not condemned the same way as killing someone by accident or in
self-defense. But basically I can't see any justification of death penalty
in any of these cases.
>>So, Jigsaw, that was the purpose of your question, I know that there are
>>some conditions before a convicted killer can be sentenced to death
penalty.
>
>That's better than a lot of people -- but it's really not enough. I've
posted
>the Texas statute that defines capital murder -- why don't you see if you
can
>find it on Dejanews? It's also available on many WWW sites.
>
>[snip]
>
>--
>For e-mail replies, change the utx$v$ to utxsvs
By the way, I notice that you haven't got any comment on my other points.
You have been very clever to underline Jigsaw's only question I eluded. In
case you have doubts, my last message was also directed to you. So I'm
waiting...
euro15jb
David Proctor wrote in message <6dtt7u$hop$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>...
>
>euro15jb wrote in message <6dtpbp$d1o$1...@news3.isdnet.net>...
>>
>>From an empiric point of view, I believe it has been proved that death
>>penalty has no effect.
>
>Not true - one could say that it satiates society's desire for revenge, and
>prevents members of society from attempting to take the law into their own
>hands, knowing that, if the crime warrants the DP, then the DP will,
>eventually, be imposed. Whether satisfying this desire for revenge is a
good
>thing or not is a matter for debate, however.
>
Then we may say that death penalty is a murder by proxy. But don't you feel
there is a contradiction in trying to repress a murder by revenge? I'm not
certain that a society living on that feeling is a safe society. And what's
the purpose of revenge? It will never compensate the original crime, will
it?
>> One can't say that places where death penalty is
>>enforced are safer in any way than places where there is no death penalty.
>I
>>am not American, so I don't have lots of statistics to refer to, but while
>>having executed murderers for many years, one can still notice that places
>>like Texas or Florida still have murders (even more than in other places).
>
>Perhaps if the imposition of the penalty was swift and certain, an argument
>could (but maybe not) ne advanced that it may act as a deterrent - in
>England in the 1940's and 50's, when Albert Pierrepoint was the chief
>hangman, the condemned were executed within three weeks of sentencing.
>
But if the indicted happens to be innocent? During the French revolution,
people used to be guillotined some days after being judged. Yet it's not a
model of good justice, lots of innocents died guillotined at that time.
>>Death penalty even didn't prevent this silly guy to put a bomb in a public
>>place in Oklahoma. So I take it for proved that death penalty has never
>>helped reduce crime, and that's just the reason why some of you spend time
>>arguing about it.
>
>
>True - most violent crimes are committed either whilst the offender is
under
>the influence of drugs, alcohol or both, or in the throes of passions - in
>all of these cases, the existence of the DP would not have prevented the
>crime, as the offender was not in a lucid enough state to consider the
>consequences.
>
Which is why I find death penalty particularly odious in such a case.
>>The reason for that is that death penalty has no preventive effect on
>>murder. If supporters of death penalty had studied one ounce of
>criminology,
>>they would know that a murder will kill, whether there is death penalty or
>>not. Have you ever thought what the mobiles of crime can be?
>>
>>The truth is that every human being is a potential killer. Nobody can say
>>for sure "I'll never kill my neighbor". Or then he's a liar. As no one can
>>predict his future, you cannot say that fate will never put you under
>>circumstances where you get transformed into a murderer. Of course there
>are
>>murders with premeditation (death penalty is nothing else than murder with
>>premeditation, even though it consists in murdering a murderer). But there
>>are also murders motivated by hazard (you kill someone by accident or
>>negligence, without meaning to kill: cf. the GI who crashed 20 people in
>>Italy some days ago), or you kill someone you know because of jealousy
(you
>>discover that your wife or husband has a lover and you kill him/her/both).
>>So look at yourself in a mirror: how can you be sure that you won't murder
>>someone before 1998 is over?
>>
>>So instead of trying to solve criminality by death penalty, you might ask
>>yourself why Europe has a lower criminality than the USA and does not
apply
>>death penalty. And think about the problem of fire arms in the USA. :)
>
>
>You raised some very good points - but I would submit that the whole system
>should be overhauled - appoint MORE justices to the Supreme Court - have
>three of the Supreme Court justices hear the appeal against verdict and
>sentence - then have seven judges hear the habeus appeal. There would only
>be two stages in the appeals process.
>
>The execution would then be carried out - swiftly and surely. The cost of
>executing would then be considerably cheaper than LWOP. Because my basic
>support for the DP is that I dont want my taxes paying to feed and house
>this scum for the rest of their days, like we currently do in Australia.
Well, my opinion is that death penalty has no legitimacy whichever point you
consider it from. Of course, it's a good way to reduce tax. But the question
of legitimacy remains unsolved. We should be aware that executing all the
people who cost tax can lead to very bad extremities. I prefer to pay more
tax than saying what you said.
Your Name Here
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 20:10:48 +0100, euro15jb (euro...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>>Um...gee...maybe it has something to do with the fact that you need to
>>understand something before you debate the propriety of it. I'm not going
>to
>>attack you, since you've at least been honest about the fact that you don't
>>know what crimes the death penalty is used for. Nobody's asking you to be
>>familiar with the laws dealing with trespassing or prostitution -- but if
>>you're going to debate this issue, you should at least be familiar with the
>>definition of capital murder and the difference between the other types of
>>homicide and capital murder.
>
>I know that. If it was the only purpose of the question, I think it wasn't
>worth asking it. I almost believed that there was a language subtility I
>couldn't understand. I can suppose that killing someone with premeditation
>is quite not condemned the same way as killing someone by accident or in
>self-defense. But basically I can't see any justification of death penalty
>in any of these cases.
And it's not applied in any of the cases you mentioned. Premeditated murder is
considered to be first degree murder, not capital murder. The other offenses
you mentioned aren't even murder.
>>>So, Jigsaw, that was the purpose of your question, I know that there are
>>>some conditions before a convicted killer can be sentenced to death
>penalty.
>>
>>That's better than a lot of people -- but it's really not enough. I've
>posted
>>the Texas statute that defines capital murder -- why don't you see if you
>can
>>find it on Dejanews? It's also available on many WWW sites.
>>
>>[snip]
>By the way, I notice that you haven't got any comment on my other points.
>You have been very clever to underline Jigsaw's only question I eluded. In
I made it obvious that I was skipping the rest when I included the "[snip]" at
the end of my post. I skipped it because most of it was simply your opinion,
which is something that's not particularly debatable.
>case you have doubts, my last message was also directed to you. So I'm
>waiting...
Fine, here it is:
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:47:15 +0100, euro15jb (euro...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>Fortunately. It remains that death penalty is not supported by a federal law
>so the same murderer could be sentenced to death in a state and to another
>penalty in another state.
It is supported by federal law -- in the sense that the Supreme Court of the
United States has ruled that it's an acceptable punishment for certain crimes.
It's just not REQUIRED by federal law.
>So your point is that death penalty is legal so it's right to enforce it. On
>the form you are right to say this. But my point is that death penalty is
>not legitimate. On a philosophical and ethical point of view. That is
>exactly what I wrote:
>
>"I posted several messages saying that death penalty is unjustifiable from
>an
>ethic and philosophic point. On that regard, I don't need to know anything
>about American procedure to condemn it."
This is your opinion. You're entitled to it, but the fact that it's your
opinion doesn't mean that it's correct. You don't feel it's legitimate -- I
disagree with you, and most Americans share my view.
>I know that when someone is executed in the USA, the execution is supported
>by the law. I am even aware that there is no common point between a
>premeditated murder and a murder by accident, and can even recognize that my
>argument on this point was wrong. Now the function of a citizen is to look
>at a law and wonder whether this law is legitimate or not. There used to be
A citizen has a right to wonder whether a law is "legitimate" or not, but they
don't have the right to disregard the law simply because they don't agree with
it. The fact that you think a law (or punishment) is "illegitimate" doesn't
make it "illegitimate."
>laws providing that slavery or racial segregation were legal, it doesn't
>mean they were legitimate.
The laws legalizing slavery and racial segregation were laws that prescribed
horrible treatment based on circumstances beyond a person's control. The laws
allowing capital punishment are laws that allow execution for actions that are
completely under the control of the person.
>So Jigsaw, I appreciate very much your efforts to persuade me that death
>penalty is rights just because it is legal. I know it is legal, but my point
>is that death penalty is not legitimate. That's my answer to the point you
>mentioned.
Your opinion is that it's not legitimate. My opinion differs.
Jigsaw's point is an important one -- it is the law, and residents of states
with the death penalty know it's the law. They know that if they commit capital
murder they may be executed for it. To avoid being executed, all they have to
do is avoid committing capital murder.
>Now I am waiting your answer to the other points I raised. I regularly post
>in the ng an excerpt of Camus and included it in my former message to you
>and I'm still waiting for your comments. I also raised some other points:
>
>- does criminality disappear when we apply death penalty? Obviously no, or
>else one would know that there is no crime in Texas. On that regard, one
No one ever promised that "criminality [would] disappear" with the advent of
the death penalty.
Of course, when its application is so inefficient that it takes ten to fifteen
years to execute death-row inmates, I don't expect much of an impact at all.
>should rather try to see if arms are controlled enough, if the fight against
Washington, D.C. has some of the most stringent arms control (gun control) laws
in the country. Washington also has a murder rate that's many times higher
than the national average. It's silly to believe that people who are
committing murder are going to obey gun control laws.
Perhaps in your country, it would be easy to control "arms." Here, it's nearly
impossible. There are already millions of them here, and there are just too
many places to smuggle them in (thousands of miles of borders). Once they're
here, it's very difficult to find them (you can't just stop and search people
at random or go door-to-door demanding to search the home for guns).
>drugs is efficient, if there should be as much violence on TV as there is.
Again, it's undoubtedly much easier to control drugs in your country than it is
here. We have thousands of miles of border, and much of that border is shared
with Mexico, which is essentially an illegal drug warehouse. Without Mexico,
it would be tough to curb the flow of drugs -- with Mexico, it's impossible.
There just aren't enough resources (personnel) to stop people from bringing
drugs into the country. Once they're here, it's even harder to find them.
If you don't understand why Mexico is such a problem, I encourage you to visit
south Texas sometime and drive all the way from the Gulf of Mexico to the state
of New Mexico (or better yet, Arizona or southern California). Do a little
research on Mexico's corrupt police organizations as well...
>One could also put more efforts on prevention of crime. I know that all this
>supposes to accept more tax. If your point is that it's just cheaper to
It takes more than money to solve the problems you're talking about.
>execute murderers, there's no talking about that but the question of
>legitimacy is still being asked.
>
>- does an execution imply that the society shows more compassion to the
>victim's family?
It shows that society carries out the penalties prescribed by the law.
>As it seems that death penalty is not an optimal solution (one can see it
>even by comparing 2 states of the USA), I don't see its competitive
It takes more than an examination of murder rates in two states to evaluate the
deterrent value of the death penalty. More than one factor influences murder
rates...
>advantage on long term imprisonment (except if prisons are unsafe and let
>people out... if it's the case in the USA, then...). I would even say more:
>you can still repair a mistake by freeing someone who was unduly imprisoned
>and give him a good compensation. In case this someone was executed... by
Exonerated convicts usually don't get "good compensation."
>the way, what happens then? Does someone call the family of the executed and
>apologize?
That's about all that can be done, aside from implementing measures to prevent
the same thing from happening again.
Is it really any better when someone dies in prison and is exonerated after his
death?
arnold chinn
euro15jb (euro...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> David Proctor wrote in message <6dtt7u$hop$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>...
> >
> >euro15jb wrote in message <6dtpbp$d1o$1...@news3.isdnet.net>...
> >>
> >>From an empiric point of view, I believe it has been proved that death
> >>penalty has no effect.
> >
> >Not true - one could say that it satiates society's desire for revenge, and
> >prevents members of society from attempting to take the law into their own
> >hands, knowing that, if the crime warrants the DP, then the DP will,
> >eventually, be imposed. Whether satisfying this desire for revenge is a
> good
> >thing or not is a matter for debate, however.
> >
> Then we may say that death penalty is a murder by proxy. But don't you feel
> there is a contradiction in trying to repress a murder by revenge? I'm not
Call it what you will.
> certain that a society living on that feeling is a safe society. And what's
> the purpose of revenge? It will never compensate the original crime, will
> it?
It'll make the victim's family feel better? No Justice...no Peace?
> >> One can't say that places where death penalty is
> >>enforced are safer in any way than places where there is no death penalty.
> >I
> >>am not American, so I don't have lots of statistics to refer to, but while
> >>having executed murderers for many years, one can still notice that places
> >>like Texas or Florida still have murders (even more than in other places).
> >
> >Perhaps if the imposition of the penalty was swift and certain, an argument
> >could (but maybe not) ne advanced that it may act as a deterrent - in
> >England in the 1940's and 50's, when Albert Pierrepoint was the chief
> >hangman, the condemned were executed within three weeks of sentencing.
> >
> But if the indicted happens to be innocent? During the French revolution,
> people used to be guillotined some days after being judged. Yet it's not a
> model of good justice, lots of innocents died guillotined at that time.
But, in Amerika it's different. After the violent killers are convicted
and condemned to Death, they're given years and years and years of appeals
so that they can become a "model" prisoner and metamorph into some kind of
born-again-Christian thing. After their appeals are all exhausted, then
they're put to Death so that they can rot-in-peace (RIP). Very long time
for the victims' families to wait for ultimate Justice and Peace. Same day
Justice, that's a GOOD idea!
> >>Death penalty even didn't prevent this silly guy to put a bomb in a public
> >>place in Oklahoma. So I take it for proved that death penalty has never
> >>helped reduce crime, and that's just the reason why some of you spend time
> >>arguing about it.
> >
> >
> >True - most violent crimes are committed either whilst the offender is
> under
> >the influence of drugs, alcohol or both, or in the throes of passions - in
> >all of these cases, the existence of the DP would not have prevented the
> >crime, as the offender was not in a lucid enough state to consider the
> >consequences.
> >
> Which is why I find death penalty particularly odious in such a case.
Bein' under the influence while committin' a violent crime is no excuse.
By all means, I'm not preventin' you to pay MORE taxes. In fact, it would
be great if you adopt and be responsible for the violent killers...house the
killers in your home.
""" """
0u0 00-?
*******************oOOo*****oOOo***************oOO***OOo*****
* The Death penalty does NOT deter violent criminals... *
* It just ELIMINATES them! *
* *
* Yes, Karla...there's such a thing as Justice in Amerika *
* http://www.amw.com *
*************************************************************
--
Newton28
euro15jb wrote in message <6e5fkl$nq3$1...@news2.isdnet.net>...
>
>JIGSAW1695 wrote in message
><19980308234...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Re: Death Penalty
>>From: sikkid@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu (Your Name Here)
>>Date: Sun, Mar 8, 1998 18:06 EST
>>Message-id: <6dv89i$4k0$3...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
>>
>>On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 22:45:09 +0100, euro15jb (euro...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>>
>>>>Tell me Euro, name at least two of the conditions that must exist
>before
>>>a
>>>>convicted killer can legally be subjected to consideration of the death
>>>>penalty. ( There are far more than 2, by the way).
>>
>>Did anyone else notice that Euro just decided to skip this question
>altogether?
>>
>>It appears that Euro, like the vast majority of the whining Europeans who
>post
>>here, isn't familiar with the definition of "capital murder."
>>
>>
>>=======================
>>
>>Im afraid you are right. Euro dosent have the slighest idea what the
>>applications of the law are, so :
>>
>> EURO, WE ARE WAITING........
>>
>>
>>Jigsaw
>
>What are you waiting for? I'm not an American and don't see why I should be
>submitted to an exam of American law before debating death penalty.
>
>So, Jigsaw, that was the purpose of your question, I know that there are
>some conditions before a convicted killer can be sentenced to death
penalty.
>Fortunately. It remains that death penalty is not supported by a federal
law
>so the same murderer could be sentenced to death in a state and to another
>penalty in another state.
>
>So your point is that death penalty is legal so it's right to enforce it.
On
>the form you are right to say this. But my point is that death penalty is
>not legitimate. On a philosophical and ethical point of view. That is
>exactly what I wrote:
>
>"I posted several messages saying that death penalty is unjustifiable from
>an
>ethic and philosophic point. On that regard, I don't need to know anything
>about American procedure to condemn it."
>
>I know that when someone is executed in the USA, the execution is supported
>by the law. I am even aware that there is no common point between a
>premeditated murder and a murder by accident, and can even recognize that
my
>argument on this point was wrong. Now the function of a citizen is to look
>at a law and wonder whether this law is legitimate or not. There used to be
>laws providing that slavery or racial segregation were legal, it doesn't
>mean they were legitimate.
>
>So Jigsaw, I appreciate very much your efforts to persuade me that death
>penalty is rights just because it is legal. I know it is legal, but my
point
>is that death penalty is not legitimate. That's my answer to the point you
>mentioned.
>
>Now I am waiting your answer to the other points I raised. I regularly post
>in the ng an excerpt of Camus and included it in my former message to you
>and I'm still waiting for your comments. I also raised some other points:
>
>- does criminality disappear when we apply death penalty? Obviously no, or
>else one would know that there is no crime in Texas. On that regard, one
>should rather try to see if arms are controlled enough, if the fight
against
>drugs is efficient, if there should be as much violence on TV as there is.
>One could also put more efforts on prevention of crime. I know that all
this
>supposes to accept more tax. If your point is that it's just cheaper to
>execute murderers, there's no talking about that but the question of
>legitimacy is still being asked.
>
>- does an execution imply that the society shows more compassion to the
>victim's family?
>
>As it seems that death penalty is not an optimal solution (one can see it
>even by comparing 2 states of the USA), I don't see its competitive
>advantage on long term imprisonment (except if prisons are unsafe and let
>people out... if it's the case in the USA, then...). I would even say more:
>you can still repair a mistake by freeing someone who was unduly imprisoned
>and give him a good compensation. In case this someone was executed... by
>the way, what happens then? Does someone call the family of the executed
and
>apologize?
>
Please explain your reasoning as to why the death penalty is ethically and
morally wrong. I dont want to hear that such and such an author, theologian,
philosopher, or truck driver said it was wrong...why do YOU think it is
wrong?
arnold chinn
There's no Death penalty in Europe? Then why was Ms. Francesca Trombino,
43, executed? People takin' laws in there own hands? You do remember her
don't you? She's the lawyer defendin' the U.S. Marine, Colonel Richard
Muegge. Ms. Trombino was hammered to Death! Is this supposed to be some
kind of anomaly? Better ban 'em hammers quick before it get outa hand!
JIGSAW1695
Subject: Death Penalty
From: hfli...@huey.csun.edu (arnold chinn)
Date: Thu, Mar 12, 1998 22:58 EST
Message-id: <3508a...@130.166.1.64>
There's no Death penalty in Europe? Then why was Ms. Francesca Trombino,
43, executed? People takin' laws in there own hands? You do remember her
don't you? She's the lawyer defendin' the U.S. Marine, Colonel Richard
Muegge. Ms. Trombino was hammered to Death! Is this supposed to be some
kind of anomaly? Better ban 'em hammers quick before it get outa hand!
=========================
I think that you should tell us more about her murder.
Jigsaw
euro15jb
JIGSAW1695 wrote in message
<19980313045...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
The 15 countries of Western Europe have abolished death penalty de jure or
de facto, and have signed the 6th protocol to the Declaration of Human
Rights of the Council of Europe in 1983. As there used to be some countries
enforcing death penalty before that, you may find some cases of executed
people. There won't be any. Even if abolishing death penalty isn't a
condition for the entrance into the EU, there's a great chance that
countries who are candidate to are invited to abolish it.
By the way I am still waiting your answer to some other messages I posted
(under the same topic). But take your time, after all, if you can't
understand the difference between a prison and a concentration camp:)
Desmond Coughlan
hfli...@huey.csun.edu (arnold chinn) writes:
> There's no Death penalty in Europe? Then why was Ms. Francesca Trombino,
> 43, executed? People takin' laws in there own hands? You do remember her
> don't you? She's the lawyer defendin' the U.S. Marine, Colonel Richard
> Muegge. Ms. Trombino was hammered to Death! Is this supposed to be some
> kind of anomaly? Better ban 'em hammers quick before it get outa hand!
Another pro state-murder poster thinking that murder and execution are
mutually exclusive ...
Rev. Don Kool
> > There's no Death penalty in Europe? Then why was Ms. Francesca Trombino,
> > 43, executed? People takin' laws in there own hands? You do remember her
> > don't you? She's the lawyer defendin' the U.S. Marine, Colonel Richard
> > Muegge. Ms. Trombino was hammered to Death! Is this supposed to be some
> > kind of anomaly? Better ban 'em hammers quick before it get outa hand!
> Another pro state-murder poster thinking that murder and execution are
> mutually exclusive ...
Another illiterate oxymoron poster confusing a just execution with
a heinous murder. Desi, no wonder you're the pied piper to the
uninformed. You do such a good job of fitting in with them. In
case one of them have a spark of reading comprehension, I'll post
the proper, legally accepted, standard definitions for "murder" and
"execution". I realize that your blind devotion to murderers
precludes you from understanding simple facts like these that normal
people take for granted.
murder; an illegal homicide.
execution; the inflicting or suffering of the death penalty.
You see, Desi, the part about murder being "illegal" means that
"murder and execution are mutually exclusive".
As I've pointed out to you before, my son, if you've got to make up
your own definitions for common words just to make a 'point', the
validity of your point is already highly suspect. But then again,
your intention was never to make a point in the first place. Your
only purpose here is to troll.
Dan Hogg
In article <19980313045...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) writes:
|> Subject: Death Penalty
|> From: hfli...@huey.csun.edu (arnold chinn)
|> Date: Thu, Mar 12, 1998 22:58 EST
|> Message-id: <3508a...@130.166.1.64>
|>
|> 43, executed? People takin' laws in there own hands? You do remember her
|> don't you? She's the lawyer defendin' the U.S. Marine, Colonel Richard
|> Muegge. Ms. Trombino was hammered to Death! Is this supposed to be some
|> kind of anomaly? Better ban 'em hammers quick before it get outa hand!
|>
|>
|> I think that you should tell us more about her murder.
I agree with Jigsaw, we need more information. Given that Chinn didn't do
a very creditable job the first time around, I checked the news and wire
sources. The facts (as reported by a dozen US newspapers) are that Ms.
Trombino was representing was representing the wife of a retiree in divorce
proceedings. Seems the husband was "angry" about how Ms. Trombino was
doing her job when he bludgeoned her to death.
Police authorities in Italy stated that the incident is unrelated to the
cable car accident in February in which 20 people died when the USAF jet
clipped the wires. Col. Muegge was the commander of the 4-person crew.
Ms. Trombino had been representing him. A police spokesman said, "the
defense of the commander has nothing to do with the murder...They are
completely separate issues."
Seems that at least one pro-dp'er doesn't understand the difference between
murder and execution. Perhaps we'll hear lots of correction from the many
voices eager to correct anti-dp'ers when they don't distinguish the two.
--
==========================================================================
Daniel Hogg | da...@lexis-nexis.com
LEXIS-NEXIS | tenw...@worldnet.att.net
Dayton, OH 45342 |
==========================================================================
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds of distance run...
raider
I cannot envision Jesus, Ghandi, Pope Paul, etc., of ever killing a fellow
human being. What? we kill human beings to show the rest of the human race
that killing human beings is wrong? Dumb.
Mum
raider <rai...@rapidcity.net> wrote in article
<01bd4fb0$140740e0$17d98dd0@default>...
I cannot envision Jesus, Ghandi, Pope Paul, etc., of ever killing a fellow
human being. What? we kill human beings to show the rest of the human race
that killing human beings is wrong? Dumb.
No, we kill human beings to show the rest of the human race that if they
decide to break the law and take a life then they must forfeit theirs.
Simple really.
JIGSAW1695
Subject: Re: Death Penalty
From: "Mum" <su...@comcen.com.au>
Date: Sun, Mar 15, 1998 01:11 EST
Message-id: <01bd4ff0$1c8d2780$caee...@sue.hard.net.au>
raider <rai...@rapidcity.net> wrote in article
<01bd4fb0$140740e0$17d98dd0@default>...
I cannot envision Jesus, Ghandi, Pope Paul, etc., of ever killing a fellow
human being.
====================================
Nor can I. However, a lot of followers did kill fellow humans in their name
Yours In Liberal Observation and Solidarity
Jigsaw
Road...@usa.com
raider wrote:
>
> I cannot envision Jesus, Ghandi, Pope Paul, etc., of ever killing a fellow human being. What? we kill human beings to show the rest of the human race that killing human beings is wrong? Dumb.
Why don't YOU do your preaching to the "Murders". They are the ones
that are taking human lives without just cause.
Murders that are executed NEVER murder again do they...The DP does work.
tos...@hotmail.com
In article <6eak57$ohp$1...@news2.isdnet.net>,
"euro15jb" <euro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> JIGSAW1695 wrote in message
> <19980313045...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> >From: hfli...@huey.csun.edu (arnold chinn)
> >Date: Thu, Mar 12, 1998 22:58 EST
> >Message-id: <3508a...@130.166.1.64>
> >
> >There's no Death penalty in Europe? Then why was Ms. Francesca Trombino,
> >43, executed? People takin' laws in there own hands? You do remember her
> >don't you? She's the lawyer defendin' the U.S. Marine, Colonel Richard
> >Muegge. Ms. Trombino was hammered to Death! Is this supposed to be some
> >kind of anomaly? Better ban 'em hammers quick before it get outa hand!
> >
> >=========================
> >
> >I think that you should tell us more about her murder.
> >
> >
>
> The 15 countries of Western Europe have abolished death penalty de jure or
> de facto, and have signed the 6th protocol to the Declaration of Human
> Rights of the Council of Europe in 1983. As there used to be some countries
> enforcing death penalty before that, you may find some cases of executed
> people. There won't be any. Even if abolishing death penalty isn't a
> condition for the entrance into the EU, there's a great chance that
> countries who are candidate to are invited to abolish it.
>
> By the way I am still waiting your answer to some other messages I posted
> (under the same topic). But take your time, after all, if you can't
> understand the difference between a prison and a concentration camp:)
There seems to be a misunderstanding. Here is an excerpt from the page
http://www.pathfinder.com/news/latest/RB/1998Mar07/30.html
---
ROME (Reuters) - A lawyer acting for a U.S. Marine linked with last month's
Italian cable car tragedy was beaten to death with a hammer Friday, police
said.
Francesca Trombino received blows to the head and body from a man thought to
be aged around 50 using a hammer wrapped in a newspaper, a spokesman for the
Carabinieri paramilitary police in Pordenone in northeast Italy told Reuters.
Police were questioning a man.
``We don't know if the aggression was linked with her role (in defending the
U.S. Marine),'' the spokesman said. ``It could be a coincidence that she is
the lawyer for this man.''
---
No one denies that there is criminality in Europe. But this case has nothing
to do with death penalty.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Gund...@provide.net
In article <01bd4fb0$140740e0$17d98dd0@default>,
"raider" <rai...@rapidcity.net> wrote:
>
> I cannot envision Jesus, Ghandi, Pope Paul, etc., of ever killing a fellow
> human being. What? we kill human beings to show the rest of the human race
> that killing human beings is wrong? Dumb.
>
You forgot to (spit), btw.
Desmond Coughlan
"Mum" <su...@comcen.com.au> writes:
> I cannot envision Jesus, Ghandi, Pope Paul, etc., of ever killing a fellow
> human being. What? we kill human beings to show the rest of the human race
> that killing human beings is wrong? Dumb.
> No, we kill human beings to show the rest of the human race that if they
> decide to break the law and take a life then they must forfeit theirs.
Bearing in mind the obscene crime rates in the United States, it
doesn't seem to be working.
> Simple really.
Yes, you are, aren't you ...?
tos...@hotmail.com
In article <6ehjvu$78r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Some more info. According to the Italian state television, RAI, Francesca
Trombino was representing the suspect's wife in a divorce. There is currently
no indication that the killing is linked to the cable car incident. For more
info see
http://cnn.com/WORLD/9803/06/italy.cablecar/index.html
I hope Jigsaw and Arnold Chinn are satisfied. Have a nice day.
euro15jb
Newton28 wrote in message
<823A935DE15EA33A.08D5A9D6...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>
> Please explain your reasoning as to why the death penalty is ethically and
>morally wrong. I dont want to hear that such and such an author,
theologian,
>philosopher, or truck driver said it was wrong...why do YOU think it is
>wrong?
>
It is wrong because one can't affirm to fight for the respect of life and
again criminality and in the same time commit an execution (which is nothing
else than a legal murder). It is wrong because one cannot base a society on
principles like revenge, which is an ethically and morally unacceptable
feeling. It is wrong because one cannot be sure (one can never be sure) that
no innocent will be executed. It is wrong because there is no legitimacy in
killing anyone, even the most evil murderer. It is wrong because it results
in executing people who are not really responsible of their acts (drug
addicts, lunatics, members of sects).
For all those reasons it's wrong.
Gund...@provide.net
In article <6ekc9n$jtn$1...@news3.isdnet.net>,
"euro15jb" <euro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It is wrong because one can't affirm to fight for the respect of life and
> again criminality and in the same time commit an execution (which is nothing
> else than a legal murder). It is wrong because one cannot base a society on
> principles like revenge, which is an ethically and morally unacceptable
The dp is not the basis for our society, it it the basis for this newsgroup.
It is also the punishment that we in the US apply very carefully to only the
absolute worst of murderers. We are sure beyond a reasonable doubt, and that
is the standard we have chosen. We happen to apply that standard to all
criminal convictions.
> feeling. It is wrong because one cannot be sure (one can never be sure) that
> no innocent will be executed. It is wrong because there is no legitimacy in
> killing anyone, even the most evil murderer. It is wrong because it results
Are you in fact opposed to self-defense? It is occasionally necessary for
police and private citizens to use deadly force to protect themselves. I
think that is quite legitimate, and society acts in self defense, and in
defense of justice, when it executes those who, in a more perfect world,
would have been killed by those they attacked.
> in executing people who are not really responsible of their acts (drug
> addicts, lunatics, members of sects).
Those who are legally incompetent, are not subject to the dp. That said, i
will never accept that drug use [a conscious choice] and religion [another]
constitute exculpatory or mitigating evidence.
> For all those reasons it's wrong.
>
Not!
WindSong
> It is wrong because there is no legitimacy in
> killing anyone, even the most evil murderer. It is wrong because it
results
> in executing people who are not really responsible of their acts (drug
> addicts, lunatics, members of sects).
> For all those reasons it's wrong.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Then we're stuck supporting all this human garbage, human weeds for the
rest of their lives in Prisons to the tune of $30,000 to $40,000 a year.
That's taxpayers money. While the killer lolls around reading, watching
TV,working out on gym equipment, is fed, clothed..... it's sickening. Why
should we have to support them forever - some live to ripe old ages. They
should have thought about what they were doing when they willfully killed
their victims = I'm on the side of the victims. To hell with the killers
>:o(
--
Carol...I'm not just a gardener, I'm a Plant Manager.
~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
>
>
Rev. Don Kool
tos...@hotmail.com wrote:
[...snip...]
> Some more info. According to the Italian state television, RAI, Francesca
> Trombino was representing the suspect's wife in a divorce. There is currently
> no indication that the killing is linked to the cable car incident. For more
> info see
>
> http://cnn.com/WORLD/9803/06/italy.cablecar/index.html
>
> I hope Jigsaw and Arnold Chinn are satisfied. Have a nice day.
Seems that lack of a just Death Penalty is some deterrent. Fucking
eurotrash losers just can't keep from killing each other.
Desmond Coughlan
Desmond Coughlan <nospam_...@pratique.fr> writes:
> Nor do Europeans. The expression 'state run' means free of commercial
> influence, and not governmental mothpieces. The BBC is a good
> example: without a doubt the greatest television, news, current
> affairs, and drama organisation on the face of the planet.
To avoid spelling flames: I meant 'mouthpieces'.
Desmond Coughlan
hfli...@huey.csun.edu (arnold chinn) writes:
[on Europe]
> > > No one denies that there is criminality in Europe. But this case has nothing
> > > to do with death penalty.
> Yes! I know...there's no Justice in Europe. There's why there's no Peace
> over there.
Of course, the United States, with 20,000 murders every year, and
about a billion rapes every second, is the land of milk and honey.
Don't you ever get tired of posting such bullshit ..?
[rest snipped out of pity]
Desmond Coughlan
hfli...@huey.csun.edu (arnold chinn) writes:
[snip]
> > Some more info. According to the Italian state television, RAI, Francesca
> Hey! What the F**K is this!? STATE run television!? This is a GOVERNMENT
> CONTROLLED!? I don't believe in government propaganda!
Nor do Europeans. The expression 'state run' means free of commercial
influence, and not governmental mothpieces. The BBC is a good
example: without a doubt the greatest television, news, current
affairs, and drama organisation on the face of the planet.
--
Paul D.
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, euro15jb wrote:
> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 20:34:10 +0100
> From: euro15jb <euro...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Subject: Re: A question to JIWSAW1695 and Rev. Don Kool and other
"proers"
>
>
> Rev. Don Kool wrote in message <3505D520...@home.com>...
> >Ludvig Mortberg wrote:
> >
> >> If you commited murder, would you like to be sentenced to death and
> >> executed for that?
> >
> > No, I'd "like" to be let off scott free. Wouldn't you?
> >
> ........
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > Don
> >
> >
> >--
> >********************** My juice is sweet like Georgia peaches
> >* Rev. Don McDonald * Women suck it up like leeches
> >* Baltimore, MD * ---- FREAKNASTY
> >********************** "Da' Dip"
> >http://members.home.net/oldno7
>
> If being ridiculous on a newsgroup was punishable of death penalty, it's
> more than likely that Rev. Don Kool would be promptly executed!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Amen to that Brother.
THE GAFSTER.
Here! Here! The Good Rev. would be awaiting Old Sparky with that hypocrite
Paul Hill in Florida!
--
Paul Di Gianfrancesco
digian.r...@darientel.net
Note: need to remove ".removethis" to reply.
Support the Anti-Spam Ammendment: http://www.cauce.org
The Blacklist of Internet Advertisers:
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~cbrown/BL/
MMF people: send your chain letters here: net-...@nocs.insp.irs.gov
arnold chinn
tos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <6ehjvu$78r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> tos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <6eak57$ohp$1...@news2.isdnet.net>,
> > to do with death penalty.
Yes! I know...there's no Justice in Europe. There's why there's no Peace
over there.
> >
> Some more info. According to the Italian state television, RAI, Francesca
> Trombino was representing the suspect's wife in a divorce. There is currently
> no indication that the killing is linked to the cable car incident. For more
> info see
> http://cnn.com/WORLD/9803/06/italy.cablecar/index.html
> I hope Jigsaw and Arnold Chinn are satisfied. Have a nice day.
The bottom line remains...Ms. Francesca Trombino, 43, is DEAD! UNJUSTLY
KILLED! Hope you're satisfied. No Justice!...No Peace!!
""" """
0u0 00-?
*******************oOOo*****oOOo***************oOO***OOo*****
* The Death penalty does NOT deter violent criminals... *
* It just ELIMINATES them! *
* *
* Yes, Karla...there's such a thing as Justice in Amerika *
* http://www.amw.com *
*************************************************************
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
--
arnold chinn
> Some more info. According to the Italian state television, RAI, Francesca
Hey! What the F**K is this!? STATE run television!? This is a GOVERNMENT
CONTROLLED!? I don't believe in government propaganda!
""" """
0u0 00-?
*******************oOOo*****oOOo***************oOO***OOo*****
* The Death penalty does NOT deter violent criminals... *
* It just ELIMINATES them! *
* *
* Yes, Karla...there's such a thing as Justice in Amerika *
* http://www.amw.com *
*************************************************************
> Trombino was representing the suspect's wife in a divorce. There is currently
> no indication that the killing is linked to the cable car incident. For more
> info see
> http://cnn.com/WORLD/9803/06/italy.cablecar/index.html
> I hope Jigsaw and Arnold Chinn are satisfied. Have a nice day.
JIGSAW1695
Subject: Re: Death Penalty
From: "Paul D. " <digian.r...@darientel.net>
Date: Tue, Mar 17, 1998 16:10 EST
Message-id: <01bd51e8$58ee0ba0$7a32...@digian.darientel.net>
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, euro15jb wrote:
> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 20:34:10 +0100
> From: euro15jb <euro...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Subject: Re: A question to JIWSAW1695 and Rev. Don Kool and other
"proers"
>
>
> Rev. Don Kool wrote in message <3505D520...@home.com>...
> >Ludvig Mortberg wrote:
> >
> >> If you commited murder, would you like to be sentenced to death and
> >> executed for that?
> >
> > No, I'd "like" to be let off scott free. Wouldn't you?
> >
> ........
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > Don
===========================
Great Answer Don. Paul, we are still waiting for you to ask a great question...
in your case, We will settle for a good question.
Yours in LIberal Solidairty
Jigsaw
arnold chinn
> [on Europe]
> > > > No one denies that there is criminality in Europe. But this case has nothing
> > > > to do with death penalty.
> > Yes! I know...there's no Justice in Europe. There's why there's no Peace
> > over there.
> Of course, the United States, with 20,000 murders every year, and
> about a billion rapes every second, is the land of milk and honey.
> Don't you ever get tired of posting such bullshit ..?
You're absolutely correct...your figures on murders and rapes ARE
""" """
0u0 00-?
*******************oOOo*****oOOo***************oOO***OOo*****
* The Death penalty does NOT deter violent criminals... *
* It just ELIMINATES them! *
* *
* Yes, Karla...there's such a thing as Justice in Amerika *
* http://www.amw.com *
*************************************************************
BULLSHIT!
> [rest snipped out of pity]
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
> dcou...@pratique.fr
> http://www.pratique.fr/~dcoughla/
--
arnold chinn
> [snip]
> > > Some more info. According to the Italian state television, RAI, Francesca
> > Hey! What the F**K is this!? STATE run television!? This is a GOVERNMENT
> > CONTROLLED!? I don't believe in government propaganda!
> Nor do Europeans. The expression 'state run' means free of commercial
> influence, and not governmental mothpieces. The BBC is a good
> example: without a doubt the greatest television, news, current
> affairs, and drama organisation on the face of the planet.
I do believe I ALREADY said government propaganda!!
""" """
0u0 00-?
*******************oOOo*****oOOo***************oOO***OOo*****
* The Death penalty does NOT deter violent criminals... *
* It just ELIMINATES them! *
* *
* Yes, Karla...there's such a thing as Justice in Amerika *
* http://www.amw.com *
*************************************************************
> --
Newton28
euro15jb wrote in message <6ekc9n$jtn$1...@news3.isdnet.net>...
>
>Newton28 wrote in message
><823A935DE15EA33A.08D5A9D6...@library-proxy.airnews.n
e
>t>...
>>
>> Please explain your reasoning as to why the death penalty is ethically
and
>>morally wrong. I dont want to hear that such and such an author,
>theologian,
>>philosopher, or truck driver said it was wrong...why do YOU think it is
>>wrong?
>>
>
>It is wrong because one can't affirm to fight for the respect of life and
>again criminality and in the same time commit an execution (which is
nothing
>else than a legal murder). It is wrong because one cannot base a society on
>principles like revenge, which is an ethically and morally unacceptable
>feeling. It is wrong because one cannot be sure (one can never be sure)
that
>no innocent will be executed. It is wrong because there is no legitimacy in
>killing anyone, even the most evil murderer. It is wrong because it results
>in executing people who are not really responsible of their acts (drug
>addicts, lunatics, members of sects).
>For all those reasons it's wrong.
>
>
What is your reasoning for stating that an execution is a "legal murder"?
Don't you see any distinction between the act of a murderer and that same
murderer being executed for their actions? As for revenge, that may exist in
some people but isn't it a generalization to say that all who favor the
death penalty want revenge? Maybe your definition of revenge is different
than mine. For me revenge would be a personal matter, not a societal one.
As to whether or not executions are legitimate, doesn't society determine
what is or is not legitimate or what is and is not legal?
Its possible to debate whether a prevalent practice is right or wrong, but
that really doesn't answer the question as to whether or not a nation can
decide what they believe is legitimate or not. Much is made about the abuses
of Hitler, Stalin, etc.. but winners do write the history books, don't they?
If someone uses drugs, joins a cult-basically anything that involves a
personal decision-they are responsible for the consequences of that
decision. Every action has a cause and I think its avoiding personal
responsibility to look for "causes" to blame everything on. A "cause" may
exist but does not produce an action such as murder unless someone assents
to that "cause".
arnold chinn
Desmond Coughlan (nospam_...@pratique.fr) wrote:
> Desmond Coughlan <nospam_...@pratique.fr> writes:
> > Nor do Europeans. The expression 'state run' means free of commercial
> > influence, and not governmental mothpieces. The BBC is a good
> > example: without a doubt the greatest television, news, current
> > affairs, and drama organisation on the face of the planet.
> To avoid spelling flames: I meant 'mouthpieces'.
Don't sweat it...unlike you, we're not anal-retentive...
Desmond Coughlan
hfli...@huey.csun.edu (arnold chinn) writes:
> > To avoid spelling flames: I meant 'mouthpieces'.
> Don't sweat it...unlike you, we're not anal-retentive...
No, you just think human life is expendable. Give me 'anal-retentive'
(sic) any day ...
Rev. Don Kool
> [snip]
> > > Some more info. According to the Italian state television, RAI, Francesca
>
> > Hey! What the F**K is this!? STATE run television!? This is a GOVERNMENT
> > CONTROLLED!? I don't believe in government propaganda!
>
> Nor do Europeans. The expression 'state run' means free of commercial
> influence, and not governmental mothpieces. The BBC is a good
> example: without a doubt the greatest television, news, current
> affairs, and drama organisation on the face of the planet.
Sure, Desi, "without a doubt". That's why the majority of
television in the whole of Europe consists of reruns of American
shows. ROTFLOLASTD!!!!!!!
Rev. Don Kool
> > > To avoid spelling flames: I meant 'mouthpieces'.
> > Don't sweat it...unlike you, we're not anal-retentive...
> No, you just think human life is expendable. Give me 'anal-retentive'
> (sic) any day ...
What ever mad you think that "human life is expendable"? You are a
very sick boy, Desi.
tos...@hotmail.com
In article <350ec...@130.166.1.64>,
[snip]
> > > No one denies that there is criminality in Europe. But this case has
nothing
> > > to do with death penalty.
>
> Yes! I know...there's no Justice in Europe. There's why there's no Peace
> over there.
>
> > >
>
> > Some more info. According to the Italian state television, RAI, Francesca
> > Trombino was representing the suspect's wife in a divorce. There is
currently
> > no indication that the killing is linked to the cable car incident. For
more
> > info see
>
> > http://cnn.com/WORLD/9803/06/italy.cablecar/index.html
>
> > I hope Jigsaw and Arnold Chinn are satisfied. Have a nice day.
>
> The bottom line remains...Ms. Francesca Trombino, 43, is DEAD! UNJUSTLY
> KILLED! Hope you're satisfied. No Justice!...No Peace!!
1. Needless to say, the death of Francesca Trombino is a terrible tragedy.
2. No justice? If you get any information saying that the suspect does not get
a just trial, please let us know.
3. No peace? I suppose you are referring to former Yugoslavia.
a. Western Europe (European Union plus a few more countries) is very
peaceful, and has no death penalty.
b. While Eastern Europe was under the communist tyranny, death penalty was
widely applied. Now these countries are free, but some still have not
abolished the death penalty.
c. To which category, a or b, do you think the former Yugoslavia belongs?
arnold chinn
Rev. Don Kool (old...@home.com) wrote:
> Desi Coughlan <dcou...@grolier.fr> wrote:
> > hfli...@huey.csun.edu (arnold chinn) writes:
> > > > To avoid spelling flames: I meant 'mouthpieces'.
> > > Don't sweat it...unlike you, we're not anal-retentive...
> > No, you just think human life is expendable. Give me 'anal-retentive'
> > (sic) any day ...
You're clearly mistaken and again demonstratin' how stupid you really are!
Just for your information, human Life, to me, are NOT expendable. NEVER!
Human Life is PRECIOUS. Violent criminal animal Life? ALWAYS!! And, the
faster, these violent criminal animals are put down the better. Have fun
bein' stupid while you can, though. A day will come when the Lord will
wring your scrawny neck and stick your head in where the sun doesn't shine
and fling you back to Hell for tryin' to lead the People astray.
""" """
0u0 00-?
*******************oOOo*****oOOo***************oOO***OOo*****
* The Death penalty does NOT deter violent criminals... *
* It just ELIMINATES them! *
* *
* Yes, Karla...there's such a thing as Justice in Amerika *
* http://www.amw.com *
*************************************************************
> What ever mad you think that "human life is expendable"? You are a
> very sick boy, Desi.
> Hope this helps,
> Don
> --
> ********************** My juice is sweet like Georgia peaches
> * Rev. Don McDonald * Women suck it up like leeches
> * Baltimore, MD * ---- FREAKNASTY
> ********************** "Da' Dip"
> http://members.home.net/oldno7
--
euro15jb
Gund...@provide.net wrote in message <6elg7p$mkd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6ekc9n$jtn$1...@news3.isdnet.net>,
>
>The dp is not the basis for our society, it it the basis for this
newsgroup.
>It is also the punishment that we in the US apply very carefully to only
the
>absolute worst of murderers. We are sure beyond a reasonable doubt, and
that
>is the standard we have chosen. We happen to apply that standard to all
>criminal convictions.
I know that death penalty is legal in the USA. I also know it's not applied
the same way in the USA and in Iran or China. But the principle of death
penalty is morally unacceptable, because it legalizes a premeditated murder.
You can't affirm to fight premeditated murder by a premeditated murder. It
is as contradictory as was fighting against communism by imprisoning
communists and infringing principles like freedom to think, fredom to
express one's thoughts (and then by denying their human rights)... In other
words by using the logic of the ones you intend to fight, you directly
attent the principles you want to defend. And hence recognize that those
principles are wrong.
Executing murderers means accepting social revenge as a principle of
justice. It turns revenge to a social rule. On that regard, it finally
constitutes a basis of the society (the proof being that people expect death
penalty to punish more and more people: I recently read messages on this
newsgroup asking death penalty against terrorists - it was about those guys
who were caught in Nevada with lethal gas on them at the beginning of this
month).
This is why death penalty is contestable on the basis of human rights. Death
penalty is as illegitimate as slavery or discrimination. Philosophically and
morally speaking it leads to a contradiction.
Besides, as it seems that death penalty is not an optimal solution and
doesn't ensure a higher level of safety (one can see it even by comparing
the safety of 2 states of the USA), I don't see its competitive advantage on
long term imprisonment (except if prisons are unsafe and let easily people
out... but that's not the case in the USA...).
>
>Are you in fact opposed to self-defense? It is occasionally necessary for
>police and private citizens to use deadly force to protect themselves. I
>think that is quite legitimate, and society acts in self defense, and in
>defense of justice, when it executes those who, in a more perfect world,
>would have been killed by those they attacked.
>
Self-defense means that you must protect yourself from a danger about to
come. Not from a danger that has come. Do you think that people are executed
for the murder they committed or for the murder that they could possibly
commit again? Do you forget that self-defense is what happens when you can't
plan your reaction. An execution has nothing to do with self-defense, it is
premeditated. It's a legal premeditated murder.
>Those who are legally incompetent, are not subject to the dp. That said, i
>will never accept that drug use [a conscious choice] and religion [another]
>constitute exculpatory or mitigating evidence.
>
Well, I was thinking of people who are under the effect of drugs or sects
when they kill (not after). I remember of a guy who was executed in Arkansas
in 1992, he was a lunatic. I remember Tucker, she committed her murder under
the effect of a cocktail of drugs. Both of them were obviously not
responsible for their acts. By saying this, I don't try to legitimate their
crimes. Sick people should be healed, not executed.
euro15jb
WindSong wrote in message <01bd518a$142ef3c0$6a7041cf@default>...
>
>
>> Then we're stuck supporting all this human garbage, human weeds for the
>rest of their lives in Prisons to the tune of $30,000 to $40,000 a year.
>That's taxpayers money. While the killer lolls around reading, watching
>TV,working out on gym equipment, is fed, clothed..... it's sickening. Why
>should we have to support them forever - some live to ripe old ages. They
>should have thought about what they were doing when they willfully killed
>their victims = I'm on the side of the victims. To hell with the killers
>>:o(
>--
>Carol...I'm not just a gardener, I'm a Plant Manager.
>~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
>
>>
Of course, that's a way to consider the problem. But then why should we have
jails? Why should we limit death penalty to murderers? Wouldn't it be even
better to execute sentenced people at once and then sell the organs to
private hospitals, if necessary against their will? Just like they did in
China... At least that would be a way to make money from murderers...
I hope you pardon me that ironic reaction. I know that's stupid, but it's
the logical end of what you said.
euro15jb
Newton28 wrote in message
<65515F9ED8E29662.09440CEB...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>
> What is your reasoning for stating that an execution is a "legal murder"?
As soon as death penalty is legal, an execution also is legal. Execution
means premeditating the murder off a murderer (a murder is the action of
killing someone). Hence an execution is a legal premeditated murder,
performed by a state.
>Don't you see any distinction between the act of a murderer and that same
>murderer being executed for their actions? As for revenge, that may exist
in
>some people but isn't it a generalization to say that all who favor the
>death penalty want revenge? Maybe your definition of revenge is different
>than mine. For me revenge would be a personal matter, not a societal one.
I heard lots of people say that death penalty is a way to revenge a crime. A
way for the society to get protection from its bad subjects and have them
pay for their crimes. You may not think so but lots of people do.
Personally I consider that death penalty may be used as a way of revenging
a crime. By executing a murderer, one commits a murder by proxy... for the
victims or their families. It also is a way for the society as a whole to
revenge especially awful crimes. Executing murderers means accepting social
revenge as a principle of justice. It turns revenge to a social rule. I
agree with you on the fact that revenge is basically personal. But social or
group revenge still exist, one sometimes calls it vendetta.
>As to whether or not executions are legitimate, doesn't society determine
>what is or is not legitimate or what is and is not legal?
No. Society decides what is legal. Legitimacy is above legality. The
difference is just the same as the one between law and equity. One can make
slavery or racial segregation lawful, it still remains illegitimate. Equity
is not being decided from the law. It is determined from a group of
principles which are universal enough to prevail in any country regardless
of borders and civilizations. Death penalty cannot be based on equity
because it leads to contradictions. You can't affirm to fight premeditated
murder by a premeditated murder. It is as contradictory as was fighting
against communism by imprisoning communists and infringing principles like
freedom to think, freedom to express one's thoughts (and then by denying
their human rights)... In other words by using the logic of the ones you
intend to fight, you directly attack the principles you want to defend. And
hence recognize that those principles are wrong.
>Its possible to debate whether a prevalent practice is right or wrong, but
>that really doesn't answer the question as to whether or not a nation can
>decide what they believe is legitimate or not. Much is made about the
abuses
>of Hitler, Stalin, etc.. but winners do write the history books, don't
they?
You confuse historical interpretations and legitimacy. The way history books
are written doesn't prevent to put in question some acts of winners, which
is purely legitimate. The bombing over Dresden is an example for that.
Whichever interpretation you give about it, the question of its legitimacy
(morally, philosophically, on the basis of the principles) remains unsolved.
> If someone uses drugs, joins a cult-basically anything that involves a
>personal decision-they are responsible for the consequences of that
>decision. Every action has a cause and I think its avoiding personal
>responsibility to look for "causes" to blame everything on. A "cause" may
>exist but does not produce an action such as murder unless someone assents
>to that "cause".
>
I believe you have been happy enough throughout your life to be able to make
such choices. Some people aren't that happy. They can find themselves in
such situations that they can't think reasonably before acting. Such people
are sick. I absolutely don't try to justify their murder. I think that sick
people should be healed rather than being executed. They only symbolize the
failures of our society.
Desmond Coughlan
hfli...@huey.csun.edu (arnold chinn) writes:
> > > > > To avoid spelling flames: I meant 'mouthpieces'.
> > > > Don't sweat it...unlike you, we're not anal-retentive...
> > > No, you just think human life is expendable. Give me 'anal-retentive'
> > > (sic) any day ...
> You're clearly mistaken and again demonstratin' how stupid you really are!
> Just for your information, human Life, to me, are NOT expendable. NEVER!
> Human Life is PRECIOUS. Violent criminal animal Life? ALWAYS!! And, the
> faster, these violent criminal animals are put down the better. Have fun
> bein' stupid while you can, though. A day will come when the Lord will
> wring your scrawny neck and stick your head in where the sun doesn't shine
> and fling you back to Hell for tryin' to lead the People astray.
<shakes head in disbelief>
... and they wonder why people think they're savages ...
--
desmond e. coughlan |Restez Zen: Linux peut le faire
dcou...@pratique.fr
http://www.pratique.fr/~dcoughla/
Rev. Don Kool
euro15jb wrote:
> Gund...@provide.net wrote...
[...snip...]
> I know that death penalty is legal in the USA. I also know it's not applied
> the same way in the USA and in Iran or China. But the principle of death
> penalty is morally unacceptable, because it legalizes a premeditated murder.
If some of this eurotrash would actually pick up a dictionary, they
would realize their illiterate mistakes and either stop posting here
or at least attempt to construct a cogent argument on why we should
suffer a murderer to live. As it is, they simply embarrass
themselves.
Earth to Europe.... "premeditated murder" is illegal across these
great United States. In most places it is punishable by the just
Death Penalty.
[...remaining illiteracy snipped...]
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Rev. Don Kool
euro15jb babbled illiteratly:
> Newton28 wrote...
> > What is your reasoning for stating that an execution is a "legal murder"?
> As soon as death penalty is legal, an execution also is legal. Execution
> means premeditating the murder off a murderer (a murder is the action of
> killing someone). Hence an execution is a legal premeditated murder,
> performed by a state.
I realize that facts are anathema to the murderer lovers' "cause",
but some are necessary now and then. A "murder" is an "illegal
homicide". A just execution, being legal, can never be accurately
described as a "murder". Go on demonstrating that two syllable
words are too complicated for you to understand. It lends much
credibility to your "cause".
Hope this helps,
arnold chinn
> > > > > > To avoid spelling flames: I meant 'mouthpieces'.
> > > > > Don't sweat it...unlike you, we're not anal-retentive...
> > > > No, you just think human life is expendable. Give me 'anal-retentive'
> > > > (sic) any day ...
> > You're clearly mistaken and again demonstratin' how stupid you really are!
> > Just for your information, human Life, to me, are NOT expendable. NEVER!
> > Human Life is PRECIOUS. Violent criminal animal Life? ALWAYS!! And, the
> > faster, these violent criminal animals are put down the better. Have fun
> > bein' stupid while you can, though. A day will come when the Lord will
> > wring your scrawny neck and stick your head in where the sun doesn't shine
> > and fling you back to Hell for tryin' to lead the People astray.
> <shakes head in disbelief>
> ... and they wonder why people think they're savages ...
...and that's why we've the Death penalty...to eliminate the violent
criminals...
""" """
0u0 00-?
*******************oOOo*****oOOo***************oOO***OOo*****
* The Death penalty does NOT deter violent criminals... *
* It just ELIMINATES them! *
* *
* Yes, Karla...there's such a thing as Justice in Amerika *
* http://www.amw.com *
* *
* Karla: You mean bein' a model prisoner and all is not *
* gonna save my butt? *
*************************************************************
> --
> desmond e. coughlan |Restez Zen: Linux peut le faire
> dcou...@pratique.fr
> http://www.pratique.fr/~dcoughla/
--
arnold chinn
nrp1.dejanews.com> <6eqem5$se9$2...@news2.isdnet.net>:
Organization: California State University, Northridge
Distribution:
euro15jb (euro...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> Gund...@provide.net wrote in message <6elg7p$mkd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <6ekc9n$jtn$1...@news3.isdnet.net>,
> >
> >The dp is not the basis for our society, it it the basis for this
> newsgroup.
> >It is also the punishment that we in the US apply very carefully to only
> the
> >absolute worst of murderers. We are sure beyond a reasonable doubt, and
> that
> >is the standard we have chosen. We happen to apply that standard to all
> >criminal convictions.
> I know that death penalty is legal in the USA. I also know it's not applied
> the same way in the USA and in Iran or China. But the principle of death
> penalty is morally unacceptable, because it legalizes a premeditated murder.
> You can't affirm to fight premeditated murder by a premeditated murder. It
> is as contradictory as was fighting against communism by imprisoning
> communists and infringing principles like freedom to think, fredom to
> express one's thoughts (and then by denying their human rights)... In other
> words by using the logic of the ones you intend to fight, you directly
> attent the principles you want to defend. And hence recognize that those
> principles are wrong.
> Executing murderers means accepting social revenge as a principle of
Bein' under the effect of whatever is no excuse for violent criminals to
take away someone's love ones. The Just penalty for violent crime should
not just be Death...it should be VIOLENT Death for the violent criminals.
Convicted violent criminals should not be AWARDED life time free room and
board.
They deliberately and freely doped themselves up with illicit drugs and
butchered their victims and they're not OBVIOUSLY responsible? Shiftin'
the violent crime on dope? YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY SOME KIND OF SICKO!
Yes, of course the sick people should be healed...and the violent
criminals eliminated. The People DEMANDS Justice for violent crimes
committed.
""" """
0u0 00-?
*******************oOOo*****oOOo***************oOO***OOo*****
* The Death penalty does NOT deter violent criminals... *
* It just ELIMINATES them! *
* *
* Yes, Karla...there's such a thing as Justice in Amerika *
* http://www.amw.com *
*************************************************************
--
arnold chinn
3c0$6a7041cf@default> <6eqen2$se9$3...@news2.isdnet.net>:
Organization: California State University, Northridge
Distribution:
euro15jb (euro...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> WindSong wrote in message <01bd518a$142ef3c0$6a7041cf@default>...
> >
> >
> >> Then we're stuck supporting all this human garbage, human weeds for the
> >rest of their lives in Prisons to the tune of $30,000 to $40,000 a year.
> >That's taxpayers money. While the killer lolls around reading, watching
> >TV,working out on gym equipment, is fed, clothed..... it's sickening. Why
> >should we have to support them forever - some live to ripe old ages. They
> >should have thought about what they were doing when they willfully killed
> >their victims = I'm on the side of the victims. To hell with the killers
> >>:o(
> >--
> >Carol...I'm not just a gardener, I'm a Plant Manager.
> >~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
> >
> >>
> Of course, that's a way to consider the problem. But then why should we have
> jails? Why should we limit death penalty to murderers? Wouldn't it be even
Jails are for lessor crimes, fool! For petty non-violent crimes where no
one was murdered! We don't put to Death a criminal who walks up to you,
knocks you over the bone-head, and runs away with your wallet. But, if he
knocks out your brain matters, kills you, and runs away with your wallet,
it's a different story. If the violent criminal kills you it may not be a
loss, but to prevent it from happenin' again, the violent criminal must be
put down.
> better to execute sentenced people at once and then sell the organs to
> private hospitals, if necessary against their will? Just like they did in
> China... At least that would be a way to make money from murderers...
That's not a bad idea, though...good-for-nothin' criminals put to good
use. After all, we're capitalists. But, then, we're Amerikans...we give
our convicted condemned violent criminals years and years and years of
appeals so that they can be model prisoners and metamorph into one of
those born-again-Christian things before they meet Death and Justice. We
Amerikans are more compassionate.
""" """
0u0 00-?
*******************oOOo*****oOOo***************oOO***OOo*****
* The Death penalty does NOT deter violent criminals... *
* It just ELIMINATES them! *
* *
* Yes, Karla...there's such a thing as Justice in Amerika *
* http://www.amw.com *
*************************************************************
> I hope you pardon me that ironic reaction. I know that's stupid, but it's
> the logical end of what you said.
--
euro15jb
Rev. Don Kool wrote in message <351120FC...@home.com>...
>
> I realize that facts are anathema to the murderer lovers' "cause",
>but some are necessary now and then. A "murder" is an "illegal
>homicide". A just execution, being legal, can never be accurately
>described as a "murder". Go on demonstrating that two syllable
>words are too complicated for you to understand. It lends much
>credibility to your "cause".
>
Don Kool, you definitely should buy a dictionnaary some day. A murder is
nothing else than a homicide. An execution is nothing else than a homicide
(a premeditated one) performed by the state to have basic citizens believe
that by killing a murderer the society is safer. By seeing you, one can see
it works. Sadly.
By the way, aren't you able to write a message without an insult. I doubt it
lends credibility to your "cause". It makes it only vulgar.
euro15jb
Rev. Don Kool a écrit dans le message <35112026...@home.com>...
>euro15jb wrote:
>> Gund...@provide.net wrote...
>
> [...snip...]
>
>> I know that death penalty is legal in the USA. I also know it's not
applied
>> the same way in the USA and in Iran or China. But the principle of death
>> penalty is morally unacceptable, because it legalizes a premeditated
murder.
>
> If some of this eurotrash would actually pick up a dictionary, they
>would realize their illiterate mistakes and either stop posting here
>or at least attempt to construct a cogent argument on why we should
>suffer a murderer to live. As it is, they simply embarrass
>themselves.
I think on the contrary that is just too much for you to grasp. Someone who
is mostly interested in brandies and pitbulls could not possibly debate a
cogent argument.
>
> Earth to Europe.... "premeditated murder" is illegal across these
>great United States. In most places it is punishable by the just
>Death Penalty.
Well, you say it is just. Give a proof of that.
>
> [...remaining illiteracy snipped...]
Illiteracy is probably the field you are the best. We decidedly have few in
common.
By the way, how come you have no insults to address me about the other parts
of my message?
Newton28
euro15jb wrote in message <6eqeo3$se9$4...@news2.isdnet.net>...
>
>Newton28 wrote in message
><65515F9ED8E29662.09440CEB...@library-proxy.airnews.n
e
>t>...
>>
>> What is your reasoning for stating that an execution is a "legal murder"?
>
>
>As soon as death penalty is legal, an execution also is legal. Execution
>means premeditating the murder off a murderer (a murder is the action of
>killing someone). Hence an execution is a legal premeditated murder,
>performed by a state.
>
I dont share your view that an execution equates murder. I believe you
are ignoring something called due process of law. You seem to equate all
killing as "murder" and I do not. Killing in self-defense is not murder,
killing in war time is not murder nor is accidentally causing the death of
another a murder. You seem to be arguing from the point of view that a
society cannot dictate what is considered legal and legitimate by that
society. If the terms "legal" and "legitimate" are only seen in their
abstract sense then it could be argued that nothing is legal or legitimate.
I prefer to go from the real to the abstract, not the other way around.
>>Don't you see any distinction between the act of a murderer and that same
>>murderer being executed for their actions? As for revenge, that may exist
>in
>>some people but isn't it a generalization to say that all who favor the
>>death penalty want revenge? Maybe your definition of revenge is different
>>than mine. For me revenge would be a personal matter, not a societal one.
>
>I heard lots of people say that death penalty is a way to revenge a crime.
A
>way for the society to get protection from its bad subjects and have them
>pay for their crimes. You may not think so but lots of people do.
>Personally I consider that death penalty may be used as a way of revenging
>a crime. By executing a murderer, one commits a murder by proxy... for the
>victims or their families. It also is a way for the society as a whole to
>revenge especially awful crimes. Executing murderers means accepting social
>revenge as a principle of justice. It turns revenge to a social rule. I
>agree with you on the fact that revenge is basically personal. But social
or
>group revenge still exist, one sometimes calls it vendetta.
>
I don't think that revenge enters into the death penalty as much as some
seem to think. I think its more a case of society declaring that a certain
individual has given up their right to live and function in that society.
Your argument could only be true if the right to life was an absolute, which
it is not. The state can require you to give up your life as in a time of
war or similar national emergency i.e. you can legally be shot for violating
certain martial law prohibitions.
>
>
>>As to whether or not executions are legitimate, doesn't society determine
>>what is or is not legitimate or what is and is not legal?
>
>
>No. Society decides what is legal. Legitimacy is above legality. The
>difference is just the same as the one between law and equity. One can make
>slavery or racial segregation lawful, it still remains illegitimate. Equity
>is not being decided from the law. It is determined from a group of
>principles which are universal enough to prevail in any country regardless
>of borders and civilizations. Death penalty cannot be based on equity
>because it leads to contradictions. You can't affirm to fight premeditated
>murder by a premeditated murder. It is as contradictory as was fighting
>against communism by imprisoning communists and infringing principles like
>freedom to think, freedom to express one's thoughts (and then by denying
>their human rights)... In other words by using the logic of the ones you
>intend to fight, you directly attack the principles you want to defend. And
>hence recognize that those principles are wrong.
It all depends on whose principles you are operating from. You can use
Nietzche for one argument, Pascal for another..even throw in Heidegger and
Satre to make it interesting. These were all philosophers (even moralists to
a point) yet they all differ widely in their world view.
>
>>Its possible to debate whether a prevalent practice is right or wrong, but
>>that really doesn't answer the question as to whether or not a nation can
>>decide what they believe is legitimate or not. Much is made about the
>abuses
>>of Hitler, Stalin, etc.. but winners do write the history books, don't
>they?
>
>You confuse historical interpretations and legitimacy. The way history
books
>are written doesn't prevent to put in question some acts of winners, which
>is purely legitimate. The bombing over Dresden is an example for that.
>Whichever interpretation you give about it, the question of its legitimacy
>(morally, philosophically, on the basis of the principles) remains
unsolved.
No, my position is that the winners define what was right, wrong, illegal,
etc. about the foes they were victorious over. True, those are historical
interpretations but history is, after all, interpretation. I am sure that if
Germany had won WWII, we would all be quite inpressed by how our great
leaders solved the Jewish problem and how much nicer the world is without
all of those inferior races to worry about.
Any appeal to morality or philosophy to buttress an argument must include
said moralist or philosopher. I can use them to support any argument, just
depends on who you recognize as the final authority.
After all, there are moral and philosophical justifications for what Hitler
done--you just have to pick the right ones.
>> If someone uses drugs, joins a cult-basically anything that involves a
>>personal decision-they are responsible for the consequences of that
>>decision. Every action has a cause and I think its avoiding personal
>>responsibility to look for "causes" to blame everything on. A "cause" may
>>exist but does not produce an action such as murder unless someone assents
>>to that "cause".
>>
>
>I believe you have been happy enough throughout your life to be able to
make
>such choices. Some people aren't that happy. They can find themselves in
>such situations that they can't think reasonably before acting. Such people
>are sick. I absolutely don't try to justify their murder. I think that sick
>people should be healed rather than being executed. They only symbolize the
>failures of our society.
>
My life has been far more....interesting then I want to go into.:)
Anyway, I dont accept the fact that all murderers are sick, mentally
unbalanced, etc. I think the only "sickness" that afflicts most of them is a
callous disregard for the life of another person. Society fails all of us to
a greater or lesser degree and I think its just a cop-out to blame murder on
the "failure of society". Like the song says "the big bad world doesn't owe
you a thing".
>
>
>
>
Rev. Don Kool
euro15jb wrote:
> Rev. Don Kool wrote...
> >euro15jb wrote:
> >> Gund...@provide.net wrote...
> > [...snip...]
> >> I know that death penalty is legal in the USA. I also know it's not
> >> applied the same way in the USA and in Iran or China. But the principle
> >> of death penalty is morally unacceptable, because it legalizes a
> >> premeditated murder.
> > If some of this eurotrash would actually pick up a dictionary, they
> >would realize their illiterate mistakes and either stop posting here
> >or at least attempt to construct a cogent argument on why we should
> >suffer a murderer to live. As it is, they simply embarrass
> >themselves.
[...tiresome ad hominem snipped...]
> > Earth to Europe.... "premeditated murder" is illegal across these
> >great United States. In most places it is punishable by the just
> >Death Penalty.
> Well, you say it is just. Give a proof of that.
> > [...remaining illiteracy snipped...]
>
> Illiteracy is probably the field you are the best. We decidedly have few in
> common.
>
> By the way, how come you have no insults to address me about the other parts
> of my message?
"euro15jb" -- you post that states in the United States commit
"murder". Since this is certainly not the case, there is nothing to
"address".
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Rev. Don Kool
euro15jb wrote:
> Rev. Don Kool wrote...
> > I realize that facts are anathema to the murderer lovers' "cause",
> >but some are necessary now and then. A "murder" is an "illegal
> >homicide". A just execution, being legal, can never be accurately
> >described as a "murder". Go on demonstrating that two syllable
> >words are too complicated for you to understand. It lends much
> >credibility to your "cause".
> Don Kool, you definitely should buy a dictionnaary some day. A murder is
> nothing else than a homicide. An execution is nothing else than a homicide
> (a premeditated one) performed by the state to have basic citizens believe
> that by killing a murderer the society is safer. By seeing you, one can see
> it works. Sadly.
Sorry to break it to you, "euro15jb", but a "murder" is an "illegal
homicide". Note the word ILLEGAL. A just execution can never be
correctly termed a murder.
[...childish ad hominem snipped...]
Hope this helps,
tos...@hotmail.com
In article
<A6A0414D4046F9B9.F1A5E3D5...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
,
"Newton28" <newt...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>
> euro15jb wrote in message <6eqeo3$se9$4...@news2.isdnet.net>...
> >
> >Newton28 wrote in message
> ><65515F9ED8E29662.09440CEB...@library-proxy.airnews.n
> e
> >t>...
> >>
> >> What is your reasoning for stating that an execution is a "legal murder"?
> >
> >
> >As soon as death penalty is legal, an execution also is legal. Execution
> >means premeditating the murder off a murderer (a murder is the action of
> >killing someone). Hence an execution is a legal premeditated murder,
> >performed by a state.
>
> >
> I dont share your view that an execution equates murder. I believe you
> are ignoring something called due process of law. You seem to equate all
> killing as "murder" and I do not. Killing in self-defense is not murder,
> killing in war time is not murder nor is accidentally causing the death of
> another a murder. You seem to be arguing from the point of view that a
> society cannot dictate what is considered legal and legitimate by that
> society. If the terms "legal" and "legitimate" are only seen in their
> abstract sense then it could be argued that nothing is legal or legitimate.
> I prefer to go from the real to the abstract, not the other way around.
Labels have little importance for the actual issue being discussed. Yet:
According to Collins Dictionary, "murder" is "The unlawful premeditated
killing of one human being by another."
And according to American Heritage Dictionary it is "The unlawful killing of
one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice."
Remove the word "unlawful" from whichever definition you prefer, and you have
legalized murder. It applies well to execution, since:
1. It is the killing of one human being by another (by the executioner on
behalf of the society)
2. It is extremely premeditated
3. It is done with malice - the intention is to inflict a deadly injury (and
also to cause pain).
Whether the malice is justified is another issue. But "legalized murder" looks
like a very adequate description of execution.
euro15jb
Rev. Don Kool wrote in message <3511BF3D...@home.com>...
>euro15jb wrote:
> "euro15jb" -- you post that states in the United States commit
>"murder". Since this is certainly not the case, there is nothing to
>"address".
They commit an intentional homicide. "Intentional homicide" is the exact
definition of a murder.
>
> Happy to have cleared things up for you,
> Don
Same here. Buy a dictionary and check the definition!
euro15jb
Rev. Don Kool wrote in message <3511BFAC...@home.com>...
>> Don Kool, you definitely should buy a dictionnaary some day. A murder is
>> nothing else than a homicide. An execution is nothing else than a
homicide
>> (a premeditated one) performed by the state to have basic citizens
believe
>> that by killing a murderer the society is safer. By seeing you, one can
see
>> it works. Sadly.
>
> Sorry to break it to you, "euro15jb", but a "murder" is an "illegal
>homicide". Note the word ILLEGAL. A just execution can never be
>correctly termed a murder.
>
My dictionary says that a murder is an "intentional homicide" (refer to any
dictionary you want, and sorry for forgetting the word intentional last
time). Originally 'murder' means assassinate. It has no relationship with
legal or illegal. As a matter of fact, an intentional homicide can be legal.
An execution is an intentional act, consisting in practicing a homicide on a
criminal. You have to assume it, Don Kool, it is perfectly correct to say
that an execution is a legal murder (as soon as death penalty is allowed by
the law). While being legal, the question of its legitimacy is still
unsolved. As you are strongly opposed to any kind of murder (I believe so),
you can realize that supporting legal murder is everything but a sign of
intellectual maturity.
One often says that masturbation makes deaf. It also enables to refrain from
real sex. I believe that intellectual masturbation has made you
intellectually deaf. Or simplistic. It enables you to refrain from really
using your brains. You definitely should buy a dictionary and stop your
intellectual masturbations. Or shall we create a fund for your education?
Newton28
tos...@hotmail.com wrote in message <6eud7r$puo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article
><A6A0414D4046F9B9.F1A5E3D5...@library-proxy.airnews.n
et>
>,
> "Newton28" <newt...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> euro15jb wrote in message <6eqeo3$se9$4...@news2.isdnet.net>...
>> >
>> >Newton28 wrote in message
>>
><65515F9ED8E29662.09440CEB...@library-proxy.airnews.n
>> e
>> >t>...
>> >>
>> >> What is your reasoning for stating that an execution is a "legal
murder"?
>> >
>> >
>> >As soon as death penalty is legal, an execution also is legal. Execution
>> >means premeditating the murder off a murderer (a murder is the action of
>> >killing someone). Hence an execution is a legal premeditated murder,
>> >performed by a state.
>>
>> >
>> I dont share your view that an execution equates murder. I believe you
>> are ignoring something called due process of law. You seem to equate all
>> killing as "murder" and I do not. Killing in self-defense is not murder,
>> killing in war time is not murder nor is accidentally causing the death
of
>> another a murder. You seem to be arguing from the point of view that a
>> society cannot dictate what is considered legal and legitimate by that
>> society. If the terms "legal" and "legitimate" are only seen in their
>> abstract sense then it could be argued that nothing is legal or
legitimate.
>> I prefer to go from the real to the abstract, not the other way around.
>
>Labels have little importance for the actual issue being discussed. Yet:
>
>According to Collins Dictionary, "murder" is "The unlawful premeditated
>killing of one human being by another."
>
>And according to American Heritage Dictionary it is "The unlawful killing
of
>one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice."
>
>Remove the word "unlawful" from whichever definition you prefer, and you
have
>legalized murder. It applies well to execution, since:
>
>1. It is the killing of one human being by another (by the executioner on
>behalf of the society)
>2. It is extremely premeditated
>3. It is done with malice - the intention is to inflict a deadly injury
(and
>also to cause pain).
>
>Whether the malice is justified is another issue. But "legalized murder"
looks
>like a very adequate description of execution.
>
>
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
If you remove "one" word from the definition of almost any word you will
usually get a very different meaning, especially if the word thats removed
is a crucial one.
Murder and legal are terms in opposition to each other since the word
"murder" by its definition is illegal. God spelled backwards is dog...seems
to be the logic in use here.
arnold chinn
62.09440CEBE689105...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
<6eqeo3$se9$4...@news2.isdnet.net> <351120FC...@home.com> <6es6an$j2u$2...@news2.isdnet.net>:
Organization: California State University, Northridge
Distribution:
euro15jb (euro...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> Rev. Don Kool wrote in message <351120FC...@home.com>...
> >
> > I realize that facts are anathema to the murderer lovers' "cause",
> >but some are necessary now and then. A "murder" is an "illegal
> >homicide". A just execution, being legal, can never be accurately
> >described as a "murder". Go on demonstrating that two syllable
> >words are too complicated for you to understand. It lends much
> >credibility to your "cause".
> >
> Don Kool, you definitely should buy a dictionnaary some day. A murder is
Most definitely, you should buy a d-i-c-t-i-o-n-a-r-y today! Ha ha, what
an idiot!
> nothing else than a homicide. An execution is nothing else than a homicide
This is where your brain cells are not workin' properly and your thought
process is faulty...a Just execution by the People is NOT a homicide. An
execution by the People is the ultimate punishment and is LEGAL...a homicide
on the other hand is MURDER, which is ILLEGAL. Even grade school kids know
and understand the difference. Why can't you?
> (a premeditated one) performed by the state to have basic citizens believe
> that by killing a murderer the society is safer. By seeing you, one can see
> it works. Sadly.
> By the way, aren't you able to write a message without an insult. I doubt it
> lends credibility to your "cause". It makes it only vulgar.
I must say, for a grown-up, your stupidity is very vulgar.
""" """
0u0 00-?
*******************oOOo*****oOOo***************oOO***OOo*****
* The Death penalty does NOT deter violent criminals... *
* It just ELIMINATES them! *
* *
* Yes, Karla...there's such a thing as Justice in Amerika *
* *
* And yes, I'm a victims' rights advocate...speakin' up *
* and speakin' out for the love ones unjustly murdered by *
* violent criminals...no matter the cost...Just will be *
* done... *
* http://www.amw.com *
*************************************************************
--
arnold chinn
62.09440CEBE689105...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
<6eqeo3$se9$4...@news2.isdnet.net> <351120FC...@home.com> <6es6an$j2u$2...@news2.isdnet.net> <3511BFAC...@home.com>:
Organization: California State University, Northridge
Distribution:
Rev. Don Kool (old...@home.com) wrote:
> euro15jb wrote:
> > Rev. Don Kool wrote...
> > > I realize that facts are anathema to the murderer lovers' "cause",
> > >but some are necessary now and then. A "murder" is an "illegal
> > >homicide". A just execution, being legal, can never be accurately
> > >described as a "murder". Go on demonstrating that two syllable
> > >words are too complicated for you to understand. It lends much
> > >credibility to your "cause".
> > Don Kool, you definitely should buy a dictionnaary some day. A murder is
> > nothing else than a homicide. An execution is nothing else than a homicide
> > (a premeditated one) performed by the state to have basic citizens believe
> > that by killing a murderer the society is safer. By seeing you, one can see
> > it works. Sadly.
> Sorry to break it to you, "euro15jb", but a "murder" is an "illegal
> homicide". Note the word ILLEGAL. A just execution can never be
HEY! Forget it...that guy is OBVIOUSLY brain DEAD! Please show some
compassion to dumb animals (violent animals are EXECUTED). No amount of
enlightenment is gonna open his eyes to the fact that a Just execution by
the People is NOT a premeditated murder. Sad to say, the lights are on,
but unfortunately there's seems to be absolutely nothin' inside. Maybe
that's why the silly fool is hidin' behind the mask "euro15jb"? Too
ashamed to identify himself with his stupidity? Hopefully, one day, a
violent criminal will come up to him and knock some basic common sense
into him.
""" """
0u0 00-?
*******************oOOo*****oOOo***************oOO***OOo*****
* The Death penalty does NOT deter violent criminals... *
* It just ELIMINATES them! *
* *
* Yes, Karla...there's such a thing as Justice in Amerika *
* http://www.amw.com *
*************************************************************
> correctly termed a murder.
> [...childish ad hominem snipped...]
> Hope this helps,
> Don
> --
> ********************** My juice is sweet like Georgia peaches
> * Rev. Don McDonald * Women suck it up like leeches
> * Baltimore, MD * ---- FREAKNASTY
> ********************** "Da' Dip"
> http://members.home.net/oldno7
--
euro15jb
arnold chinn wrote in message <3512b...@130.166.1.64>...
>62.09440CEBE689105...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
><6eqeo3$se9$4...@news2.isdnet.net> <351120FC...@home.com>
<6es6an$j2u$2...@news2.isdnet.net>:
>Organization: California State University, Northridge
>Distribution:
>
>euro15jb (euro...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>> Rev. Don Kool wrote in message <351120FC...@home.com>...
>> >
>
>This is where your brain cells are not workin' properly and your thought
>process is faulty...a Just execution by the People is NOT a homicide. An
>execution by the People is the ultimate punishment and is LEGAL...a
homicide
>on the other hand is MURDER, which is ILLEGAL. Even grade school kids know
>and understand the difference. Why can't you?
I post again what I was saying to Don Kool:
My dictionary says that a murder is an "intentional homicide" (sorry for
forgetting the word intentional last time). Originally 'murder' means
assassinate. It has no relationship with legal or illegal. Besides, an
homicide literally means the act of killing a human being.
Indeed, while being usually illegal, an intentional homicide can also be
legal. An execution is an intentional act, consisting in practicing a
homicide on a criminal. You have to assume it: it is perfectly correct to
say that an execution is a legal murder (as soon as death penalty is allowed
by the law). While being legal, the question of its legitimacy is still
unsolved.
That doesn't seem very difficult to understand, that is logic. Why can't you
admit it? Do you think it shocking when I write that by supporting death
penalty I conclude that you actually support a legal murder? Go on, there's
nothing wrong supporting the law. Only cretins support the law from the
moment it is legal, regardless of the legitimacy of its clauses. Have you
ever thought that a law can legalize slavery or genocide?
If you oppose criminality, then try to solve your contradictory position
first. You can't oppose criminality and support legal murder in the same
time. That's a non-sense.
>
>> (a premeditated one) performed by the state to have basic citizens
believe
>> that by killing a murderer the society is safer. By seeing you, one can
see
>> it works. Sadly.
>
>> By the way, aren't you able to write a message without an insult. I doubt
it
>> lends credibility to your "cause". It makes it only vulgar.
>
>I must say, for a grown-up, your stupidity is very vulgar.
>
Thanks a lot. You must be an expert in judging vulgarity. At least I never
feel like insulting others even though I don't agree with them. I have
better arguments.
By the way, do you know what intellectual masturbation is?
-------------------------------------
arnold chinn also wrote in message <35117...@130.166.1.64>...
>3c0$6a7041cf@default> <6eqen2$se9$3...@news2.isdnet.net>:
>Organization: California State University, Northridge
>Distribution:
>
>> Of course, that's a way to consider the problem. But then why should we
have
>> jails? Why should we limit death penalty to murderers? Wouldn't it be
even
>
>Jails are for lessor crimes, fool! For petty non-violent crimes where no
>one was murdered! We don't put to Death a criminal who walks up to you,
>knocks you over the bone-head, and runs away with your wallet. But, if he
>knocks out your brain matters, kills you, and runs away with your wallet,
>it's a different story. If the violent criminal kills you it may not be a
>loss, but to prevent it from happenin' again, the violent criminal must be
>put down.
Jails are even for the worst criminals. In the majority of Western
democracies, violent criminals are sentenced to long term (life)
imprisonment. And there is less crime than in the USA. So what is the
comparative advantage of death penalty on life imprisonment? Have you ever
thought that 74 persons were executing in the USA last year whereas more
than 2000 persons are waiting? It means that those 2000 persons will be
waiting for (2000/74) more than 27 years in jail. It's almost life
imprisonment. Do you consider it as the proof that death penalty is
practically enforceable?
>
>> better to execute sentenced people at once and then sell the organs to
>> private hospitals, if necessary against their will? Just like they did in
>> China... At least that would be a way to make money from murderers...
I recall that this was pure irony from me, answering to someone who told
that criminals only cost money to the tax payer. Indeed in that case, I
ironically answered that there's even a way to make money from them... (In
penal law, it is called traffic of human organs and is strictly forbidden by
international conventions). And to my great horror I got this answer:
>
>That's not a bad idea, though...good-for-nothin' criminals put to good
>use. After all, we're capitalists.
Do you know that the FBI and Harry Wu dismantled such a traffic between
Chinese jails and some American hospitals early this month?
As far as I know, only Hitler went as far as an economic exploitation of
human bodies (production of soap and other products from the Jews' bodies).
And Arnold Chinn is ready to follow. No panic, he'll certainly never be
powerful enough to cause that again, but no matter he'll be among the creeps
who would support such steps. I prefer to believe he's irresponsible.
> But, then, we're Amerikans... we give
>our convicted condemned violent criminals years and years and years of
>appeals so that they can be model prisoners and metamorph into one of
>those born-again-Christian things before they meet Death and Justice. We
>Amerikans are more compassionate.
This is thanks to the constitution, not to you. You definitely should
discuss with Don Kool about the
best way to defend the "credibility of your cause".
By the way, when an executed turns out (after years) to be innocent, what
kind of compassion do you show? Even if the executed is guilty, do you think
that execution is a proof of compassion?
JIGSAW1695
Subject: Re: Death Penalty
From: "euro15jb" <euro...@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 22, 1998 07:39 EST
Message-id: <6f30t6$o19$1...@news4.isdnet.net>
arnold chinn wrote in message <3512b...@130.166.1.64>...
>62.09440CEBE689105...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
><6eqeo3$se9$4...@news2.isdnet.net> <351120FC...@home.com>
<6es6an$j2u$2...@news2.isdnet.net>:
>Organization: California State University, Northridge
>Distribution:
>
>euro15jb (euro...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>> Rev. Don Kool wrote in message <351120FC...@home.com>...
>> >
>
>This is where your brain cells are not workin' properly and your thought
>process is faulty...a Just execution by the People is NOT a homicide. An
>execution by the People is the ultimate punishment and is LEGAL...a
homicide
>on the other hand is MURDER, which is ILLEGAL. Even grade school kids know
>and understand the difference. Why can't you?
I post again what I was saying to Don Kool:
My dictionary says that a murder is an "intentional homicide" (sorry for
forgetting the word intentional last time). Originally 'murder' means
assassinate. It has no relationship with legal or illegal. Besides, an
homicide literally means the act of killing a human being.
=================================\
The problem Euro, is that you are looking in the wrong place. If you want a
legal definition of a word used in legal practice, you should look that word up
in a legal dictionary.
If you want the true, real-life definition, look up the state statutes that
define "murder" and "homicide".
The difinition in the dictionery dont mean nothin' in the legal world/
Your in Liberal Refernce
Jigsaw
euro15jb
arnold chinn wrote in message <3512c...@130.166.1.64>...
>62.09440CEBE689105...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
><6eqeo3$se9$4...@news2.isdnet.net> <351120FC...@home.com>
<6es6an$j2u$2...@news2.isdnet.net> <3511BFAC...@home.com>:
>Organization: California State University, Northridge
>Distribution:
>
>
>HEY! Forget it...that guy is OBVIOUSLY brain DEAD! Please show some
>compassion to dumb animals (violent animals are EXECUTED). No amount of
>enlightenment is gonna open his eyes to the fact that a Just execution by
>the People is NOT a premeditated murder. Sad to say, the lights are on,
>but unfortunately there's seems to be absolutely nothin' inside. Maybe
>that's why the silly fool is hidin' behind the mask "euro15jb"? Too
>ashamed to identify himself with his stupidity? Hopefully, one day, a
>violent criminal will come up to him and knock some basic common sense
>into him.
> """ """
Someone who can just throw anathemas is certainly not worthy to debate with.
You ask why I keep my identity and my country secret. You gave the answer
yourself: because of calls to murder I received already from your likes.
euro15jb
JIGSAW1695 wrote in message
<199803221511...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>Subject: Re: Death Penalty
>From: "euro15jb" <euro...@hotmail.com>
>Date: Sun, Mar 22, 1998 07:39 EST
>Message-id: <6f30t6$o19$1...@news4.isdnet.net>
>
>
>
>The problem Euro, is that you are looking in the wrong place. If you want a
>legal definition of a word used in legal practice, you should look that
word up
>in a legal dictionary.
>
>If you want the true, real-life definition, look up the state statutes that
>define "murder" and "homicide".
>
>The difinition in the dictionery dont mean nothin' in the legal world/
>
>Your in Liberal Refernce
>
>
>Jigsaw
I know this. But as you already know, I discuss the legitimacy of death
penalty. I already told you (I guess) that while being legal, an execution
is still a murder according to the meaning of the dictionary. Remember what
Camus says... "Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to
which no
criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared."
You can say everything is OK from the moment it is legal. But I'm still
waiting for your answer on the problem of legitimacy.
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <6f3i5r$3bg$2...@news4.isdnet.net>
=============================================
Since it is legal, it must be legitimate. On what grounds do you consisder the
death penalty illegitmate, other than your personal bias?
Yours in Liberalism
Jigsaw
Newton28
euro15jb wrote in message <6f3i5r$3bg$2...@news4.isdnet.net>...
Legitimacy can can be defined as (1) lawful, (2) being in accordance with
accepted standards and (3) authentic or genuine. Hell, it can even apply to
children born in or out of wedlock. I think you fail to realize that the
concept of what is "legitimate" changes and evolves. It is not a static
idea, some grand perception that is etched in stone.
Is an execution legitimate? In the sense of being lawful, it is. Also, it is
in accordance with accepted standards. So far, this fits the definition of
the word to a "T". I would say that it is also genuine unless we are
discussing fake or staged executions. (BTW, the definition I am using for
"legitimate" also came from a dictionary.)
You also see no difference between murder and and a state execution.
Granted, they both result in the death of a person or persons but you seem
to ignore something that is crucial to understanding where the two actions
part company. That distinction is called due process of law. Basically, due
process in the guarantee that the civil and criminal rights of a defendant
will not be abrogated, and that all legal safeguards and procedures will be
followed. How you can equate this with the murder of one individual by
another is beyond me...unless you believe that the circumstances involving a
death are irrelevant and that the only thing that is important is the death
itself. If that is your belief, then you cannot justify taking the life of
another on any grounds, up to and including self-defense, whether it
involves yourself, your family, or your country.
You seem enamored of Albert Camus, a man whose basic philosophical thrust
was the existentialist
idea of the futility and meaninglessness of human life and whose writings
show he considered human life to be absurd. If you doubt me, read the Myth
Of Sisyphus, one of his most influential works. A strange selection to use
as a proponent on the value of a human life.
Jim McCulloch
In article <199803221829...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Inasmuch as there isn't any more, or less, logical support for one
statement than the other, I take it you would support the converse
statement, "since it is illegal, it must be illegitimate."
Interestingly, that that makes the DP both legitimate and illegitimate
even here in the U. S of A. Most defenders of the DP are not moral
relativists --are you, Jig? If you say the legitimacy of the DP varies by
jurisdiction, that is an exremely relativistic position.
Now, perhaps you are basing your assertion on etymological fundamentalism,
where the latin root of the word is being taken as its present meaning.
Surely, you are not engaging in the most circular of arguments, i.e.,
"since it is legal, it must be legal"!? We can all agree to the truth of
*that* statement, but, gosh, you haven't said much about whether the DP
should be abolished or kept, have you?
--Jim McCulloch
euro15jb
arnold chinn wrote in message <3512c...@130.166.1.64>...
>62.09440CEBE689105...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
><6eqeo3$se9$4...@news2.isdnet.net> <351120FC...@home.com>
<6es6an$j2u$2...@news2.isdnet.net> <3511BFAC...@home.com>:
>Organization: California State University, Northridge
>Distribution:
>
>HEY! Forget it...that guy is OBVIOUSLY brain DEAD! Please show some
>compassion to dumb animals (violent animals are EXECUTED).
You consider a murderer is an animal?
No amount of
>enlightenment is gonna open his eyes to the fact that a Just execution by
>the People is NOT a premeditated murder.
Then explain me why it is not a murder.
Sad to say, the lights are on,
>but unfortunately there's seems to be absolutely nothin' inside. Maybe
>that's why the silly fool is hidin' behind the mask "euro15jb"? Too
>ashamed to identify himself with his stupidity? Hopefully, one day, a
>violent criminal will come up to him and knock some basic common sense
>into him.
If you're that intelligent yourself, you could answer the questions I raised
in the last message I posted on the ng to you (instead of insulting me and
telling me what looks like death threats).
Besides, I use an anonymous hotmail box for 3 reasons:
1) I'm not bothered by spam mail.
2) It prevents people like you from bashing my country (which is probably
the reason why it makes you so angry, as I really don't see why my name
would matter to you).
3) My job is somewhat more important than delivering hamburgers or pizzas,
so I have good reasons for not saying my name (like most people on this
newsgroup)
tos...@hotmail.com
In article
<52967C18C98A3CC4.4DEE6036...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
,
"Newton28" <newt...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>
> tos...@hotmail.com wrote in message <6eud7r$puo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article
> ><A6A0414D4046F9B9.F1A5E3D5...@library-proxy.airnews.n
> et>
> >,
> > "Newton28" <newt...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Newton28 wrote in message
> >>
> ><65515F9ED8E29662.09440CEB...@library-proxy.airnews.n
> >> e
> >> >t>...
> >> >>
> >> >> What is your reasoning for stating that an execution is a "legal
> murder"?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >As soon as death penalty is legal, an execution also is legal. Execution
> >> >means premeditating the murder off a murderer (a murder is the action of
> >> >killing someone). Hence an execution is a legal premeditated murder,
> >> >performed by a state.
> >>
> >> >
> >> I dont share your view that an execution equates murder. I believe you
> >> are ignoring something called due process of law. You seem to equate all
> >> killing as "murder" and I do not. Killing in self-defense is not murder,
> >> killing in war time is not murder nor is accidentally causing the death
> of
> >> another a murder. You seem to be arguing from the point of view that a
> >> society cannot dictate what is considered legal and legitimate by that
> >> society. If the terms "legal" and "legitimate" are only seen in their
> >> abstract sense then it could be argued that nothing is legal or
> legitimate.
> >> I prefer to go from the real to the abstract, not the other way around.
> >
> >
> >According to Collins Dictionary, "murder" is "The unlawful premeditated
> >killing of one human being by another."
> >
> >And according to American Heritage Dictionary it is "The unlawful killing
> of
> >one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice."
> >
> >Remove the word "unlawful" from whichever definition you prefer, and you
> have
> >legalized murder. It applies well to execution, since:
> >
> >1. It is the killing of one human being by another (by the executioner on
> >behalf of the society)
> >2. It is extremely premeditated
> >3. It is done with malice - the intention is to inflict a deadly injury
> (and
> >also to cause pain).
> >
> >Whether the malice is justified is another issue. But "legalized murder"
> looks
> >like a very adequate description of execution.
> If you remove "one" word from the definition of almost any word you will
> usually get a very different meaning, especially if the word thats removed
> is a crucial one.
> Murder and legal are terms in opposition to each other since the word
> "murder" by its definition is illegal. God spelled backwards is dog...seems
> to be the logic in use here.
The logic is very much the same as when a hamburger (defined as "a sandwich
made with a patty of ground meat usually in a roll or bun") without the meat
becomes a vegetarian hamburger.
But if you still don't agree with the logic, how about this:
(a) A lynch mob kills, in accordance with its own "laws", a criminal.
(b) A state kills, in accordance with its laws, a criminal.
Case (a) is definitely murder. The actions are the same, the purposes the same
(to punish), but only case (b) is legal. Legal murder.
euro15jb
JIGSAW1695 wrote in message
<199803221829...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>Subject: Re: Death Penalty
>From: "euro15jb" <euro...@hotmail.com>
>Date: Sun, Mar 22, 1998 12:33 EST
>Message-id: <6f3i5r$3bg$2...@news4.isdnet.net>
>
>
>Since it is legal, it must be legitimate. On what grounds do you consisder
the
>death penalty illegitmate, other than your personal bias?
In some not so remote times, slavery was legal. Racial segregation was also
legal. They were not legitimate though. I remind you that death penalty is
even not legal everywhere in the USA (without speaking of the world).
The reason why death penalty is illegitimate is that supporting it leads you
to philosophical and moral contradictions. But I already explained you that,
you know it.
>
>
>
>
>Yours in Liberalism
>
>Jigsaw
>
Newton28
tos...@hotmail.com wrote in message <6f4529$8en$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article
><52967C18C98A3CC4.4DEE6036...@library-proxy.airnews.n
Nope...murder and execution are not the same. In the first instance, the
lynch mob did not conduct a trial, did not give the person a chance to face
their accusers, did not give them a chance to produce evidence of
extenuating or mitigating circumstances, did not give them a fair hearing by
a competent authority, etc.. Everything that due process involves was not
present, not the least of which was the opportunity to be found "not
guilty". THAT is what separates "murder" from "execution". I suppose these
differences are irrelevant? Murder is an illegal act....execution, provided
it follows the legitimate law of the land, is not. Your refusal to accept
the fact that the term "murder" is used to denote the illegal taking of
anothers life appears to be an attempt to put your own definition on the
word which is contrary to the real meaning.
JIGSAW1695
Subject: Re: Death Penalty
From: mccu...@mail.utexas.edu (Jim McCulloch)
Date: Sun, Mar 22, 1998 14:12 EST
Message-id: <mcculloch-220...@dial-107-29.ots.utexas.edu>
In article <199803221829...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> Since it is legal, it must be legitimate.
Inasmuch as there isn't any more, or less, logical support for one
statement than the other, I take it you would support the converse
statement, "since it is illegal, it must be illegitimate."
Interestingly, that that makes the DP both legitimate and illegitimate
even here in the U. S of A. Most defenders of the DP are not moral
relativists --are you, Jig? If you say the legitimacy of the DP varies by
jurisdiction, that is an exremely relativistic position.
Now, perhaps you are basing your assertion on etymological fundamentalism,
where the latin root of the word is being taken as its present meaning.
Surely, you are not engaging in the most circular of arguments, i.e.,
"since it is legal, it must be legal"!? We can all agree to the truth of
*that* statement, but, gosh, you haven't said much about whether the DP
should be abolished or kept, have you?
==================================================
arnold chinn
tos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <350ec...@130.166.1.64>,
> hfli...@huey.csun.edu (arnold chinn) wrote:
> >
> > tos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > In article <6ehjvu$78r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > > tos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <6eak57$ohp$1...@news2.isdnet.net>,
> > > > "euro15jb" <euro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > JIGSAW1695 wrote in message
> > > > > <19980313045...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> > > > > >Subject: Death Penalty
> > > > > >From: hfli...@huey.csun.edu (arnold chinn)
> > > > > >Date: Thu, Mar 12, 1998 22:58 EST
> > > > > >Message-id: <3508a...@130.166.1.64>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >There's no Death penalty in Europe? Then why was Ms. Francesca
> Trombino,
> > > > > >43, executed? People takin' laws in there own hands? You do remember
> her
> > > > > >don't you? She's the lawyer defendin' the U.S. Marine, Colonel
> Richard
> > > > > >Muegge. Ms. Trombino was hammered to Death! Is this supposed to be
> some
> > > > > >kind of anomaly? Better ban 'em hammers quick before it get outa
> hand!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >=========================
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I think that you should tell us more about her murder.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Jigsaw
> [snip]
> > > > No one denies that there is criminality in Europe. But this case has
> nothing
> > > > to do with death penalty.
> >
> > Yes! I know...there's no Justice in Europe. There's why there's no Peace
> > over there.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > Some more info. According to the Italian state television, RAI, Francesca
> > > Trombino was representing the suspect's wife in a divorce. There is
> currently
> > > no indication that the killing is linked to the cable car incident. For
> more
> > > info see
> >
> > > http://cnn.com/WORLD/9803/06/italy.cablecar/index.html
> >
> > > I hope Jigsaw and Arnold Chinn are satisfied. Have a nice day.
> >
> > The bottom line remains...Ms. Francesca Trombino, 43, is DEAD! UNJUSTLY
> > KILLED! Hope you're satisfied. No Justice!...No Peace!!
> 1. Needless to say, the death of Francesca Trombino is a terrible tragedy.
Yes, a "terrible tragedy" indeed...
> 2. No justice? If you get any information saying that the suspect does not get
> a just trial, please let us know.
> 3. No peace? I suppose you are referring to former Yugoslavia.
YOU were referrin' to "Yugoslavia"...
> a. Western Europe (European Union plus a few more countries) is very
> peaceful, and has no death penalty.
> b. While Eastern Europe was under the communist tyranny, death penalty was
> widely applied. Now these countries are free, but some still have not
> abolished the death penalty.
> c. To which category, a or b, do you think the former Yugoslavia belongs?
Since you obviously do not know the answer...the category in which Ms.
Francesca Trombino, 43, was UNJUSTLY MURDERED...Western Europe...where it's
"very peaceful" and "has no death penalty".
""" """
0u0 00-?
*******************oOOo*****oOOo***************oOO***OOo*****
* The Death penalty does NOT deter violent criminals... *
* It just ELIMINATES them! *
* *
* Yes, Karla...there's such a thing as Justice in Amerika *
* http://www.amw.com *
*************************************************************
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
--
Rev. Don Kool
euro15jb wrote:
> Rev. Don Kool corrected...
> >> Don Kool, you definitely should buy a dictionnaary some day. A murder is
> >> nothing else than a homicide. An execution is nothing else than a
> >> homicide (a premeditated one) performed by the state to have basic
> >> citizens believe that by killing a murderer the society is safer. By
> >> seeing you, one can see it works. Sadly.
> > Sorry to break it to you, "euro15jb", but a "murder" is an "illegal
> >homicide". Note the word ILLEGAL. A just execution can never be
> >correctly termed a murder.
> My dictionary says that a murder is an "intentional homicide" (refer to any
> dictionary you want, and sorry for forgetting the word intentional last
> time). Originally 'murder' means assassinate. It has no relationship with
> legal or illegal. As a matter of fact, an intentional homicide can be legal.
> An execution is an intentional act, consisting in practicing a homicide on a
> criminal. You have to assume it, Don Kool, it is perfectly correct to say
> that an execution is a legal murder (as soon as death penalty is allowed by
> the law). While being legal, the question of its legitimacy is still
> unsolved. As you are strongly opposed to any kind of murder (I believe so),
> you can realize that supporting legal murder is everything but a sign of
> intellectual maturity.
>
> One often says that masturbation makes deaf. It also enables to refrain from
> real sex. I believe that intellectual masturbation has made you
> intellectually deaf. Or simplistic. It enables you to refrain from really
> using your brains. You definitely should buy a dictionary and stop your
> intellectual masturbations. Or shall we create a fund for your education?
Perhaps you should create a fund to buy yourself a proper
dictionary. Then you would find out that a murder is an 'illegal
homicide'.
Rev. Don Kool
euro15jb wrote:
> Rev. Don Kool wrote...
> >euro15jb wrote:
> > "euro15jb" -- you post that states in the United States commit
> >"murder". Since this is certainly not the case, there is nothing to
> >"address".
> They commit an intentional homicide. "Intentional homicide" is the exact
> definition of a murder.
Actually 'illegal homicide' is the definition of murder but don't
let that stop you from continuing to make an illiterate fool of
yourself.
> > Happy to have cleared things up for you,
> > Don
>
> Same here. Buy a dictionary and check the definition!
Good advice; you should take it.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Rev. Don Kool
tos...@hotmail.com wrote:
>"Newton28" <newt...@airmail.net> wrote:
> > euro15jb wrote...
> > >Newton28 wrote...
> > >> What is your reasoning for stating that an execution is a "legal murder"?
> > >As soon as death penalty is legal, an execution also is legal. Execution
> > >means premeditating the murder off a murderer (a murder is the action of
> > >killing someone). Hence an execution is a legal premeditated murder,
> > >performed by a state.
> > I dont share your view that an execution equates murder. I believe you
> > are ignoring something called due process of law. You seem to equate all
> > killing as "murder" and I do not. Killing in self-defense is not murder,
> > killing in war time is not murder nor is accidentally causing the death of
> > another a murder. You seem to be arguing from the point of view that a
> > society cannot dictate what is considered legal and legitimate by that
> > society. If the terms "legal" and "legitimate" are only seen in their
> > abstract sense then it could be argued that nothing is legal or legitimate.
> > I prefer to go from the real to the abstract, not the other way around.
> Labels have little importance for the actual issue being discussed. Yet:
>
> According to Collins Dictionary, "murder" is "The unlawful premeditated
> killing of one human being by another."
>
> And according to American Heritage Dictionary it is "The unlawful killing of
> one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice."
>
> Remove the word "unlawful" from whichever definition you prefer, and you have
> legalized murder. It applies well to execution, since:
>
> 1. It is the killing of one human being by another (by the executioner on
> behalf of the society)
> 2. It is extremely premeditated
> 3. It is done with malice - the intention is to inflict a deadly injury (and
> also to cause pain).
>
> Whether the malice is justified is another issue. But "legalized murder" looks
> like a very adequate description of execution.
"legalized illegal homicide" -- only you murderer lovers feel the
need to use such twisted syntax.
Hope this helps,
tos...@hotmail.com
In article
<CB9872B62D5E326A.047BB2F1...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
,
"Newton28" <newt...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>
> tos...@hotmail.com wrote in message <6f4529$8en$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article
> ><52967C18C98A3CC4.4DEE6036...@library-proxy.airnews.n
> et>
> >,
> > "Newton28" <newt...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> tos...@hotmail.com wrote in message <6eud7r$puo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >> >In article
> >>
> ><A6A0414D4046F9B9.F1A5E3D5...@library-proxy.airnews.n
> >> et>
> >> >,
> >> > "Newton28" <newt...@airmail.net> wrote:
I agree with you on the following:
* Murder and execution are not the same. I said execution is legal murder.
* In a strictly legal sense there is no such thing as legal murder. But in an
ethical sense, there is. This how I reason.
One can very well define a concept like "lawful premeditated killing." One
example of that is the old (now hopefully completely abolished) practice in
Pakistan, where the husband can legally kill his wife if he suspects she is
unfaithful. Another example is undeniably execution.
Next question is how to name the concept "lawful premeditated killing." One
could invent a new word, e.g. "qwertying", or one could describe it using
existing words. "Legal murder" sounds appropriate to me, but perhaps not to
you. Perhaps because you emphasise the "unlawful" part in the definition of
murder, while I emphasise the "premeditated killing" part.
I believe our dispute has much to do with our different viewpoints. You see
the topic of death penalty basically in legal terms, correct me if I am wrong.
As long as the due trial process is carried out, everything is okay. May I
ask, if the legal system prescribed amputation and/or torture as punishment,
would you then still see no problem?
I on the other hand see it in ethical terms. I want to fight for the
unconditional respect for human life. I am disgusted by the deliberate killing
of a human being, whether it is carried out by an individual or by a state,
whether it is legal or not, and whether there is an extensive trial process or
not.
Newton28
tos...@hotmail.com wrote in message <6f6m78$vm5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article
><CB9872B62D5E326A.047BB2F1...@library-proxy.airnews.n
et>
>,
> "Newton28" <newt...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> tos...@hotmail.com wrote in message <6f4529$8en$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> >In article
>>
><52967C18C98A3CC4.4DEE6036...@library-proxy.airnews.n
>> et>
>> >,
>> > "Newton28" <newt...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> tos...@hotmail.com wrote in message
<6eud7r$puo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> >> >In article
>> >>
>>
><A6A0414D4046F9B9.F1A5E3D5...@library-proxy.airnews.n
>> >> et>
>> >> >,
>> >> > "Newton28" <newt...@airmail.net> wrote:
>[snip]
>
You are correct. I have been arguing murder/execution from my understanding
of what those terms mean legally without much consideration of the ethical
or moral implications. This has been deliberate on my part mainly to avoid
issues like "Is all human life of equal value? If so, why? If not, why? Can
someone make that judgment?" etc.. etc.. I realize that the answers to the
moral/ethical side of this debate over the DP are where the real answers
lie. I just don't feel like getting into things like "the Bible says this or
that" or "Jean Paul Satre said this or that" from people who just parrot
catch phrases without ever having really examined their particular position
from a personal level.
In answer to your question, I would never agree with a legal ruling that
allowed torture or mutilation. I would find myself in the position of having
to accept the fact that such actions were legal but I would not agree with
those laws. I feel that you are in the same position regarding the DP and I
applaud the fact that you have adopted a stance against them based on
personal conviction. I cant fault you for doing something I would do myself.