America Teaches that killing is alright
Mycos
do.Kill people. That sends the right message, to our youth, eh.
Son: Why did they kill that man?
Father: Becuase he was a bad man.
Lesson. Killing people you think are bad is right and justifiable.
How sick.
Sharpjfa
>From: ama...@bc.sympatico.ca (Mycos)
>Date: Thu, 11 November 1999 03:03 PM EST
>Message-id: <382b1fac....@news.bctel.ca>
Son: Daddy, why did they lock up that man?
Daddy: well, son, he had kidnapped some people.
Lesson: holding people against their will is right and justifiable.
Dad: Son, when you get older, we can discuss the difference between crime and
punishment and what their legal and moral differences are.
Son: Thanks dad.
>
>
>
>
>
>
sharpjfa
Justice For All websites http://www.jfa.net http://prodeathpenalty.com
http://murdervictims.com
Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors
victims and contributes to future victimizations.
Lur...@webtv.net
do.Kill people. That sends the right message, to our youth, eh.
Son: Why did they kill that man?
Father: Becuase he was a bad man.
Lesson. Killing people you think are bad is right and justifiable.
How sick.
Typical moral confusion. How predictable for abolitionists to indulge
in such lack of moral coherence as to erase the distinction between
crime and punishment.
A cliched argument is the question: "Why do we kill people to show that
killing people is wrong?" That two wrongs do not make a right,
therefore, executions are equivalent to murder. First of all, the term
murder is specifically defined in any dictionary as the UNLAWFUL killing
of a person with malice and aforethought. So logically, the word murder
cannot be used to describe executions since the death penalty is the
law. To do so is an obvious abuse of semantics. Second of all, comparing
executions to murders is like comparing incarcerating people to
kidnapping or charging taxes and fines to extortion. There is a
difference between violent crime and punishment. Is there a
contradiction in a policeman speeding after a speeder to enforce
speeding laws? One displays a serious lack of moral judgment to believe
that just because two practices share a physical similarity means that
they are morally identical. Law enforcement officials act well within
the law when they punish criminals whether it be by charging fines,
incarcerating them, or conducting executions, thereby, defending public
safety. Nineteenth-century English philosopher and reformer John Stuart
Mill, stated:
"Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or
imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable it is to
think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to
show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary...our
regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right
in another forfeits it for himself and that while no other crime that he
can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall."
What separates crime from punishment, good from evil are not their
physical aspects but rather their moral aspects. And moral aspects
examine the reasons and motivations behind one's actions. Abolitionists
tend to focus on the death penalty's physical aspects to demonstrate
that it is the same as murder while completely ignoring its moral
aspects involved, therefore, demonstrating their total lack of moral
coherence.
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
Sir Walter Raleigh
Father: ok now that you're bar mitzvaed
S: why is it not ok to kidnap, but it is ok to put someone in jail?
F: well, son, we put the kidnapper in there because we want to stop him from
doing it again AND we need to teach him a leeson so that he doesn't do it
against. thats why jail has to be no fun!
S: ohhhh.... so how about that guy that was executed. they aren't teaching
him a lesson -- he's dead!
F: yes son, but he won't do it again now will he?
S: right. silly me... but couldn't they have just put him in jail for ever
and throw away the key?
F: they could but. well its complicated. we also need to teach OTHER
people who are thinking about doing bad things that they can't DO this stuff
... you see what I mean son?
S: yah but my history teacher, and my principle, and this book I read and
the US Supreme Court all say there is no reason to recognize execution as a
functional general deterrent over life without parole.
F: errrr, well, yes son, but sometimes there are punishments that criminals
just deserve.
S: ohhhhhh... now I get it. thanks dad. hey, I have an idea. you know
that guy they caught raping two little girls, they should cut his penis
off!!
F: umm.. son, the thing is ...
S: and the guy who bombed the oklahoma building and ruined all those
families lives, he should have his family killed too so that he knows what
it feels like.
F: son we can't exactly
S: well, I guess his family members didn't do anything themselves ... but we
could torture him could we, he at least deserves that.
F: DEBORAH, listen to what your son is saying!
--
--
Yoni Rosenzweig
yon...@sas.upenn.edu
215-417-1401
The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many things.
--Lewis Carroll
Sharpjfa <shar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991111184900...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> >Subject: America Teaches that killing is alright
> >From: ama...@bc.sympatico.ca (Mycos)
> >Date: Thu, 11 November 1999 03:03 PM EST
> >Message-id: <382b1fac....@news.bctel.ca>
> >
> >You repeatedly claim that killing other people is wrong. What do you
> >do.Kill people. That sends the right message, to our youth, eh.
> >
> >Son: Why did they kill that man?
> >Father: Becuase he was a bad man.
> >
> >Lesson. Killing people you think are bad is right and justifiable.
> >
> >How sick.
>
Sharpjfa
>From: "Sir Walter Raleigh" yon...@sas.upenn.edu
>Date: Fri, 12 November 1999 07:32 PM EST
>Message-id: <80icie$thp$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>
DEBORAH: it's OK dear, when our son's a little bit older and you're a little
bit wiser, we'll try it again.
Mobutu Sese Seko
shar...@aol.com wrote on 11/12/1999 11:46 PM:
>
> DEBORAH: it's OK dear, when our son's a little bit older and you're a little
> bit wiser, we'll try it again.
Oh, good one Sharp. Its nice how you make these delightfully witty comments
while refusing to address the substance of posts. Maybe, if you ignore
arguments showing the asinine nature of your opinions, they'll just go
away...
Mobutu Sese-Seko
Sharpjfa
>From: Mobutu Sese Seko mob...@mobutu.za
>Date: Sat, 13 November 1999 04:55 PM EST
>Message-id: <B453488C.38FB%mob...@mobutu.za>
mobuto contribution
Lur...@webtv.net
Father: ok now that you're bar mitzvaed
S: why is it not ok to kidnap, but it is ok to put someone in jail?
punishment for breaking the law.
teaching
him a lesson -- he's dead!
again.
S: right. silly me... but couldn't they have just put him in jail for
ever
and throw away the key?
effects of time. There are many examples where criminals are sentenced
to LWOP, and then released because of a change in the laws to repeat
their crimes. So the notion of LWOP is just a scam for the weak minded.
S: yah but my history teacher, and my principle, and this book I read
and
the US Supreme Court all say there is no reason to recognize execution
as a functional general deterrent over life without parole.
dead to murder again!
S: ohhhhhh... now I get it. thanks dad. hey, I have an idea. you know
that guy they caught raping two little girls, they should cut his penis
off!!
S: and the guy who bombed the oklahoma building and ruined all those
families lives, he should have his family killed too so that he knows
what it feels like.
of yours is nothing more than smart assed, sarcastic drivel. (Slaps the
son across the face for sassing his elders.)
S: well, I guess his family members didn't do anything themselves ...
but we
could torture him could we, he at least deserves that.
our justice system justly executes that monster! DEBORAH, call the
mental institution! Our son is a fucking sociopath!
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
LogicalPike
because they chose to violate a person's property rights in the extreme
cases.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
St.George
<Lur...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2389-382...@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Son: so dad, can we talk about crime and punishment like you promised.
> Father: ok now that you're bar mitzvaed
> S: why is it not ok to kidnap, but it is ok to put someone in jail?
> F: Simply put, kidnapping is against the law while incarceration is a
> punishment for breaking the law.
> S: ohhhh.... so how about that guy that was executed. they aren't
> teaching
> him a lesson -- he's dead!
> F: Yes, but others can learn from that example, and he will never kill
> again.
> S: right. silly me... but couldn't they have just put him in jail for
> ever
> and throw away the key?
> F: No. Because lengthy incarcerations are vulnerable to the weathering
> effects of time. There are many examples where criminals are sentenced
> to LWOP, and then released because of a change in the laws to repeat
> their crimes.
Care to cite some of these "many" examples?
Or even one?
Thought not.....
Mobutu Sese Seko
Lur...@webtv.net at Lur...@webtv.net wrote on 11/13/1999 7:40 PM:
> F: Since his family had no involvement in that atrocity, that suggestion
> of yours is nothing more than smart assed, sarcastic drivel. (Slaps the
> son across the face for sassing his elders.)
S: Father, why the hell did you just assault me?
F: You were being rude and disrespectful towards me.
S: Nevertheless, you were violating my God-given,
Constitutionally-guaranteed and court-affirmed human rights, were you not?
F: Yes, son, I guess so, but I'm your father. Geese, you're not thinking
about calling the cops on me, are you son? With all of these frickin'
liberals around, they might lock me up for child abuse.
S: You know, I've heard a lot of these revenge stories lately. Now have you
ever heard of a father slapping his son after dying?
F: Of course not, that's absurd. Only the Reverend Kool could be so stupid.
[both enjoy a nice round of laughter at the good Reverend's expense]
S: Well, I'm not going to have you locked up. You're going for a trip on Ol
Sparky!
F: No, not the electric chair, you wouldn't! It's inhumane! I don't deserve
to die!
S: Well, so what? The US executes innocent people left, right and sideways.
You've actually committed a crime. Why should you be spared? Overwhelmingly,
the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors victims and
contributes to future victimizations. Its time that changes. You are going
to be the first example.
F: But... But...
This is actually quite amusing.
Mobutu Sese-Seko
Sharpjfa
Keep it going.
sharpjfa
Justice For All websites http://www.jfa.net http://prodeathpenalty.com
http://murdervictims.com
Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors
Hooked-on-quack's
Six months from now Mo'Betta will probably find some useful newsgroup
more appropriate to his interests, that is if the
alt.acme.boink.boink.boink.sexy.penguins group is still around.
On 13 Nov 1999 23:29:39 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: son grows up
>>From: Mobutu Sese Seko mob...@mobutu.za
>>Date: Sat, 13 November 1999 04:55 PM EST
>>Message-id: <B453488C.38FB%mob...@mobutu.za>
>>
>>in article 19991112234620...@ng-fz1.aol.com, Sharpjfa at
>>shar...@aol.com wrote on 11/12/1999 11:46 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> DEBORAH: it's OK dear, when our son's a little bit older and you're a
>>little
>>> bit wiser, we'll try it again.
>>
>>Oh, good one Sharp. Its nice how you make these delightfully witty comments
>>while refusing to address the substance of posts. Maybe, if you ignore
>>arguments showing the asinine nature of your opinions, they'll just go
>>away...
>
>mobuto contribution
>
>
Lur...@webtv.net
disrespectful towards me and I will not put up with it!
Constitutionally-guaranteed and court-affirmed human rights, were you
not?
discipline his offspring! And if you think that was bad, wait until you
see me in action on you if you DARE call the cops on me! Jesus! It's
bad enough that you haven't the moral judgement and intelligence to tell
the difference between crime and punishment, but now you are confusing
the distinction between violence and discipline? You are one ignorant
little shit!
S: You know, I've heard a lot of these revenge stories lately. Now have
you
ever heard of a father slapping his son after dying?
I'm calling the police! S: Well, so what? The US executes innocent
people left, right and sideways.
in the US in 100 years! Though I'm not surprised that an ignorant
little screwed up snot like yourself would be influenced by the lies of
the pro murderer crowd!
S: You've actually committed a crime. Why should you be spared?
Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals,
that changes. You are going to be the first example.
off in a straight jacket as the son continues to rant and rave his
ignorant liberal sarcasm.)
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
Sir Walter Raleigh
yes! we are in agreement then. CP establishes a precedent of subjective
moral punishment. your moral preference opts against torture as the
deserved punishment for some, mine is different - i guess its a race for the
state legislature to establish mandatory minimums for pedofiles,
necorphiliacs, child molesters, serial rapists, and the like. I really
think this country could use a legislature that passes a torture bill, maybe
then we'll wake up and smell the revenge in the air. this isn't
about revenge or subjective justice, its about the greatest good for the
greatest number. show me that giving LWOP results in significantly more
murders than DP, I'll go back to my shell and think about this argument, but
till then ...
Sir Walter Raleigh
this disucussion I wrote identifies a single principle that makes capital
punishment different than detaining criminals. it serves no rehabilitation
effort and doesn't function significantly better than other punishments in
preventing recidivism. it could, theoretically, save other lives. but
without proof of that, what ARE we teaching our kids? I posit that we are
making a statement that punishments serve an abstract subjective purpose of
justice, rather than the greater tangible good of society. even the
sanhedrin, a religious body charged with enacting God's punishment and which
was allowed to use CP, only did so once every 70 years - on the principle of
not being blood thirsty (ie using a subjective and arbitrary method of
punishment.)
Sir Walter Raleigh
> discipline his offspring!
actually there are federal and state laws that draw limits of corporal
punishment. surprisingly low too. usually says that the mark can't last
more than 6 hours... but how're we gonna enforce that?
> F: Oh, screw this! (By then, the paramedics arrive and drags his son
> off in a straight jacket as the son continues to rant and rave his
> ignorant liberal sarcasm.)
When my child has trouble understanding the difference btwn crime and
punishment, I'll show him the objective utilitarian justice system that we
have ... not our vengefully charged system. look at the original dialogue
and you'll see that the son follows his father's train of thought. he
didn't say anything about torture or castration until his father told him
that this is a tit for tat system that gives criminals what they deserve, a
kind of 'serves you right' mentality appropriate for playgrounds, not a
criminal justice system.
Lur...@webtv.net
Or even one?
Abolitionists claim that there are alternatives to the death penalty.
They say that life in prison without parole serves just as well.
Certainly, if you ignore all the murders criminals commit within prison
when they kill prison guards and other inmates, and also when they kill
decent citizens upon escape, like Dawud Mu'Min who was serving a 48-year
sentence for the 1973 murder of a cab driver when he escaped a road work
gang and stabbed to death a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky in a 1988
robbery that netted $4.00. Fortunately, there is now no chance of Mu'Min
commiting murder again. He was executed by the state of Virginia on
November 14, 1997.
Another flaw is that life imprisonment tends to deteriorate with the
passing of time. Take the Moore case in New York State for example.
In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her
parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that
he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a
change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole
every two years!
If Pamela's parents knew that they couldn't trust the state, Moore could
have been executed long ago and they could have put the whole horrible
incident behind them forever. Instead they have a nightmare to deal with
biannually. I'll bet not a day goes by that they don't kick themselves
for being foolish enough to trust the liberal sham that is life
imprisonment and rehabilitation. (According to the US Department of
Justice, the average prison sentence served for murder is five years and
eleven months.)
Putting a murderer away for life just isn't good enough. Laws change, so
do parole boards, and people forget the past. Those are things that
cause life imprisonment to weather away. As long as the murderer lives,
there is always a chance, no matter how small, that he will strike
again. And there are people who run the criminal justice system who are
naive enough to allow him to repeat his crime.
Consider the case of Leroy Keith, a recidivist killer who became a major
embarrassment to opponents of capital punishment. In 1934 Keith appeared
at Warren, Ohio. There he walked up to a man named Frederick Griest as
he was sitting behind the wheel of his parked car and shot him dead.
Then he opened the car door, tumbled the slain man onto the pavement,
and drove away in the vehicle. For that crime he was sentenced to death.
And appeal resulted in a retrial. Again Keith was convicted and again he
was sentenced to die. Another appeal resulted in the sentence being
reduced to life imprisonment. On March 7, 1956, Keith was paroled. He
was then given a government-mandated job in Youngstown, Ohio, with the
Department of the County Engineer. He lasted there for three days before
vanishing. On November 21, 1956, he turned up on North Howard Street in
Akron, Ohio, where he walked up to a parked car and shot the driver,
Coburn von Gunten, dead. He then dumped his body in the street and was
about to drive off in his newly aquired car when near by police officers
intervened. Keith then engaged the police in a gun fight and managed to
escape.
Around the same time Keith also became the prime suspect in a grocery
store robbery at Uniontown, Ohio, in which two people were shot to
death.
When Ohio became too dangerous for him, Keith headed to New York City.
He arrived in the Bronx and survived by robbing liquor stores and gas
stations. On December 19, 1956, he joined three other men for the
purpose of robbing a taxi. The foursome hailed a cab and were picked up
by a drever named David Suro. When Keith pressed a gun to the back of
Suro's head and demanded money, the man deliberately crashed his vehicle
into a police car. The thieves jumped out of the disabled taxi and fled
in different directions. Leroy Keith paused long enough to shoot the
cab-driver dead. Then he engaged police in a running gun battle through
the crowded streets. Finally, five bullets brought him down. He survived
his wounds and was charged with capital murder. He didn't get off with a
prison sentence or parole this time. On July 23, 1959, his reign of
terror ended when he was put to death by electrocution.
This is why for people who truly value public safety, there is no
substitute for the best in its defense which is capital punishment. It
not only forever bars the murderer from killing again, it also prevents
parole boards and criminal rights activists from giving him the chance
to repeat his crime.
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
Mobutu Sese Seko
yon...@sas.upenn.edu wrote on 11/14/1999 12:04 PM:
This group isn't very utilitarian, Sir Walter, they care more about dishing
out government support to various special interest groups like the JFA.
There goal, which contrasts slightly with Jeremy Bentham's, is "the greatest
killing of the greatest number." My hat's off to them, they've been pretty
successful. Hey Sharp, when are you guys opening Belgrade and Phnom Penh
branches or do you have them already?
Mobutu Sese-Seko
John G. Spragge
news:1445-382...@storefull-104.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Certainly, if you ignore all the murders criminals commit within prison
> when they kill prison guards and other inmates, and also when they kill
> decent citizens upon escape...
Unfortunately, these things happen. However, the facts contradict
the claim that capital punishment prevents them from happening.
By any standard and any estimate, the (retentionist) United States
suffers a higher proportion of recidivist homicides than does
Canada; and Canada abolished capital punishment twenty-three
years ago.
> Another flaw is that life imprisonment tends to deteriorate with the
> passing of time.
[ unfortunate case snipped ]
As a matter of practical politics, capital punishment has a direct
relationship with the supposed "decline" of life sentences. When
a jurisdiction or a politician decides to execute the "worst of the
worst", that creates the presumption that the remaineder of killers
should qualify for parole. Canada has kept our life sentencing
laws quite intact, and indeed tightened them slightly, by having a
single sentence for all premeditated murder. Canadians know
that any parole changes we make will apply to the worst of
offenders, such as Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernardo; so we
tend to keep all murderers in jail far longer than the American
average of ten-twelve years.
> Putting a murderer away for life just isn't good enough. Laws change, so
> do parole boards, and people forget the past.
This pleasant little fantasy runs right into the hard reality of
judicial practise in the United States today. Of all homicides,
fewer than 10% even qualify for a death sentence. Juries
only pass a death sentence in one case out of eight where
they even have it as an option. And the higher courts only
uphold about one death sentence in five.
So let's deal with the reality of murder sentencing in an
advanced Western democracy with plenty of money and
technical resources, but also plenty of protections for
the rights of individuals. About 20-30% of homicide
perpetrators will get clean away with their crimes; they
will probably never see the inside of a court room;
perhaps they will never even see the inside of a police
station. Of those offenders caught and charged, only
about 50% will even get a life sentence. Of the roughly
8% whose offences qualify them for a capital trial, only
1% will draw a death sentence. And of the 1% sentenced
to death, only 20% will actually get executed.
This year, about 20,000 Americans will lose one of the
most important people in their lives to homicide. About
6,000 of them will identify their loved one's body, answer
a few (possibly unsympathetic) questions from the police,
and that will end their solace from the justice system. The
sole police monument to a human life ended by violence
will consist of a notation such as "no suspects;
investigation continued" in a "cold case" file. Of course,
the outrageous cost of capital punishment ($11 million
dollars to deal with just the case of Charles Ng) means
the police have fewer resources to chase down these
cold cases.
Of the remaining 14,000 victims, 6,930 will see the
person who killed their loved one and devastated their
lives sentenced to less than a life term. On average,
offenders sentenced to a fixed term for homicide
serve about 10 years. Another 6,930 will see the
killer sentenced to life; killers sentenced to life
in the United States serve an average of two years
and four months more than killers sentenced to a fixed
prison term.
One hundred and forty of our original 20,000 victims
will get to sit in a courtroom and hear the word "death"
pronounced by a jury. Those hundred and forty will
subsequently suffer the frustration of a labyrinth of
appeals. At the end of that labyrinth, 20% of the
death sentences will end in an execution. So that
out of 20,000 victims, 28 can realistically expect
some state to offer them a seat at an execution,
five or ten or fifteen years after the fact.
[ another anecdote snipped ]
No possible or safe "reform" of the justice system
will affect these constraints on the number and pace
of executions. The safeguards for individual rights
constitute the very soul of the American legal and
political systems; the histories of Russia, Cambodia,
Germany, and Rwanda provide grisly demonstrations
of what happens to those unwise enough to tamper
with or disregard constitutional guarantees of
individual rights. You can't do without trial by jury,
safeguards against self incrimination, and so on;
experience also shows you can't execute very
much with them, either.
The experience of the twenty-three years since Gregg
v. Georgia has made nonsense out of the claim that
capital punishment constitutes the "best" of defence
for the lives of innocent people. Despite a general
decline in crime rates as the "baby boom" generation
ages, the American murder rate still leads the rest of
the developed West by a horrifying margin, and neither
abolition in Canada and throughout Europe, nor the
relatively vigorous application of capital punishment
in many American states has changed that at all.
--
J. G. Spragge ---------- standard disclaimers apply
Essays on capital punishment and network ethics at
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~spragge
turnkey4099
<st_ge...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
> <Lur...@webtv.net> wrote in message
<snip>
> > S: right. silly me... but couldn't they have just put him in
> jail for
> > ever
> > and throw away the key?
> > F: No. Because lengthy incarcerations are vulnerable to the
> weathering
> > effects of time. There are many examples where criminals are
> sentenced
> > to LWOP, and then released because of a change in the laws to
> repeat
> > their crimes.
> Or even one?
Okay, ask and you shall receive (originally posted Aug 12, 1999):
Following is an editorial from the Spokesman Review (Spokane, Wa) 081199
by D.F.OLIVERI editor. I do not recall all the details of this case.
IIRC the appeals in this case never claimed that they didn't do it, only
that the wrong jurisdiction tried them.
--- Justice Fouls Out--- To no one's surprise, Thomas Henry Gibson
officially wiggled off the hook Friday. After nearly two decades in
prison, most of it on death row,
Kimberly Anne Palmer's killer cut a deal with prosecutors last week that
will free him from prison in three and a half years. Idaho will be
lucky to keep his partner in crime, Donald Manuel Paradis, in prison
that long.
Once Gibson and Paradis were headed to the gallows for the
coldblooded 1980 murder of 19-year old Palmer. In fact, Paradis was just
weeks from execution when a media compaign orchestrat4ed by his New York
attorney took hold and then Gov. Phil Batt commuted his sentence to
LWOP. Now the two killers have reason to hope they will live out their
miserable lives as free men.
A miscarriage of justice has occurred
here. For 19 years, Palmer's mother Sherry Britz, has watched
helplessly as the motorcycle gangsters used appeal after appeal to dodge
the executioner's needle. Britz's indictment of the system that keeps
her daughter's killers alive is poignant. "There is no justice in this
system for victims of crimes." Britz has lived with the memory of what
these animals and fellow Gypsy Jokers did to Palmer and her boyfriend,
Scott Currier. First, they tortured and murdered Currier in Paradis'
Spokane home. Then they killed Palmer to cover up the crime.
The killers claimed Idaho had no jurisdiction because Palmer died at
Paradis's home, too. But a Kootenai County jury decided she'd been
murdered near Post Falls, where her body and Currier's were found.
Therefore Paradis and Gibson were subject to Idaho law. After their
convictions, the killers lobbied for a new trial -- in Washington, where
Paradis already ahd beaten the rap for Currier's murder. But court
after court supported the conviction until 1996, when Batt, on the
recomendation of a divided Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole,
succumbed to meadia pressure and commuted Paradis' death sentence.
A federal judge has since overturned Gibson's coviction. Now Paradis is
seeking retrial. No one blames the Kootenai County PA office for
accepting the plea bargain that will free Gibson. Proscutor Bill
Douglas was faced with the difficult --and expensive-- task of retrying
a 19-year-old murder case. Witnesses who at best were unreliable in 1980
have disappeared. Memories have faded.
If anything, Kootenai County did well to keep Gibson imprisoned for
what will be a total of 22 1/2 years. If we're lucky, Paradis will be
kept off the streets until then too. D.F.OLIVERIA
--- Comment ---
This is a fair reporting of the case but possibly a bit hot under the
collar. This is the reality of DP or LWOP. Here are two murderers who
escaped the DP and one who then escaped LWOP.
Sentences passed down are good only until a convict can find a new
court, a new judge, make a new political deal or some such.
Harry (still in the trenches but wondering why) K
Turnkey
--- Fighting the battle from the trenches
LogicalPike
oranges. Nice try, but this is clearly a false analogy.
Sharpjfa
>Message-id: <80mr86$97q$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>
>
>interesting, the more intricate the debate becomes, the shorter the answer.
>
>this disucussion I wrote identifies a single principle that makes capital
>punishment different than detaining criminals. it serves no rehabilitation
>effort
Rehabilitation is a reflection of the inmates desire to change. There is
certainly no other sentence which so focuses the mind of those so sentenced to
thoughts of right and wrong, punishment and justice and the meaning of life and
death.
In a discussion I had with Helen Prejean on NPR, she stated that being on death
row is like being a monk, all you have the opportunisty to do is read, write
and reflect. I agree. Undoubtedly, inmates are likely much more reflective when
sentenced to death then when receiving any other punishment.
and doesn't function significantly better than other punishments in
>preventing recidivism.
It is the only punishment which provides a 100% guarantee than murderers will
not harm again.
it could, theoretically, save other lives. but
>without proof of that,
It is proven.
> what ARE we teaching our kids?
I like this one.
"In fact, we execute murderers in order to make a communal proclamation:
that murder is intolerable. A deliberate murderer embodies evil so
terrible that it defiles the community. Thus the late social philosopher
Robert Nisbet: "Until a catharsis has been effected through trial,
through the finding of guilt and then punishment, the community is
anxious, fearful, apprehensive, and above all, contaminated."
Individual citizens have a right and sometimes a duty to speak. A
community has the right, too, and sometimes the duty. The community
certifies births and deaths, creates marriages, educates children,
fights invaders. In laws, deeds, and ceremonies it lays down the
boundary lines of civilized life, lines that are constantly getting
scuffed and needing renewal.
When a murder takes place, the community is obliged, whether it feels
like it or not, to clear its throat and step up to the microphone. Every
murder demands a communal response. Among possible responses, the death
penalty is uniquely powerful because it is permanent and can never be
retracted or overturned. An execution forces the community to assume
forever the burden of moral certainty; it is a form of absolute speech
that allows no waffling or equivocation. Deliberate murder, the
community announces, is absolutely evil and absolutely intolerable,
period." (What Do Murderers Deserve?, David Gelernter, Commentary, April 1998)
> I posit that we are
>making a statement that punishments serve an abstract subjective purpose of
>justice, rather than the greater tangible good of society.
both are subjective. You just prefer your subjective good of society to someone
else's justice.
even the
>sanhedrin, a religious body charged with enacting God's punishment and which
>was allowed to use CP, only did so once every 70 years - on the principle of
>not being blood thirsty (ie using a subjective and arbitrary method of
>punishment.)
and what was the response to that? Find the exact quote and go foward a few
extra paragraphs. OK?
sharpjfa
Justice For All websites http://www.jfa.net http://prodeathpenalty.com
http://murdervictims.com
Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors
Sir Walter Raleigh
you that your accusing the state legislatures of some dozen states, the
leaders of every industrialized nation, catholic leaders across the world
including the pope, and the overwhelming majority of the people teaching
your children of being under some left wing spell?
I reject the use of an eternal punishment on the grounds that laws might
change or there may be flaws in the system. LWOP can serve the function of
removing from society. the fact that laws may change is a testiment to our
evolving justice system - if you think that its evolving the wrong way then
change its course (dead on for the taliban and the ayatollah) but i won't
use eternal punishments to stop your version of punishment from manifesting;
why don't you extend me the same democratic privellage? I garuntee you,
saying that laws change is a lerrible argument.
i'm just saying that laws changing is natural in a constitutional democracy,
and you shouldn't use punishment to prevent that.
Sir Walter Raleigh
assumptions that you and i do not share.
perhaps add to the list one more - inspired by Camus:
I believe that you cannot hold one standard of inquiry to reach your
conclusions, and proceed to attack another for using the same standard. you
must be consistent. i';ll get to this at the end
> Undoubtedly, inmates are likely much more reflective when
> sentenced to death then when receiving any other punishment.
i speak of rehabilitating one to prepare for rentry to society. i care not
for spiritual rehabilitation without the express former purpose.
> and doesn't function significantly better than other punishments in
> >preventing recidivism.
>
> It is the only punishment which provides a 100% guarantee than murderers
will
> not harm again.
'better' is a relative term, used to compare and contrast. if I say that
you are older than me and then say 'you're 90 years old' you have not
responded to my statement. ok, you know that ... so you'll say the LWOP is
95% effective or less; and you can refer to prior posts where i say that a
punishment is a gradation, for me, not a way to make up for institutional
misgivings.
> it could, theoretically, save other lives. but
> >without proof of that,
>
> It is proven.
we've gone through where we disagree on your evidence.
> > what ARE we teaching our kids?
> I like this one.
>
> "In fact, we execute murderers in order to make a communal proclamation:
> that murder is intolerable. A deliberate murderer embodies evil so
> terrible that it defiles the community. Thus the late social philosopher
> Robert Nisbet: "Until a catharsis has been effected through trial,
> through the finding of guilt and then punishment, the community is
> anxious, fearful, apprehensive, and above all, contaminated."
Nisbet, the columbia prof who calls for another great awakening in america?
might as well quote j. fallwell. about the point, I'm glad to know you
believe that, it explains a lot -- i whole heartenly disagree and shiver at
the propects of a penal system based in creating such a 'catharsis.' who
will quantify these spirits, these fears and anxieties? how will we know
the proportional punishment to quell thes bad feelings. moreover, what
community? I like america bc I don't belong to any community that i don't
elect myself. and if someone in my self selected community were killed or
worse, I would want, feel, be anxious for his/her death or worse. but thats
why we have an unbiased justice system - to remove that subjectivity of
proximity and operate under the objective notion of 'best for the most.'
I'll get to why i call this objective.
> Individual citizens have a right and sometimes a duty to speak. A
> community has the right, too, and sometimes the duty. The community
> certifies births and deaths, creates marriages, educates children,
> fights invaders. In laws, deeds, and ceremonies it lays down the
> boundary lines of civilized life, lines that are constantly getting
> scuffed and needing renewal.
this is pretty philosophical of you - but to me it sounds more like a middle
age village. where a murderer got no trial and was just subject to the
'voice of the community.' frightens me personally. I want an impresonal,
unbiased government to do all those things. a community implies a tight
similarity of interests and beliefs. no, America is not more than an a
economic community, certainly not a cultural one, where a central government
decides on marraige and the like. thats why we have a federal system with
devolved authority.
> When a murder takes place, the community is obliged, whether it feels
> like it or not, to clear its throat and step up to the microphone. Every
> murder demands a communal response.
an institutional responce in my eyes, I don't trust the masses, they screw
up too often ... hoover, robespierre, hitler, appeasment, killing witches
... all popularly sanctioned ... all dead wrong.
Among possible responses, the death
> penalty is uniquely powerful because it is permanent and can never be
> retracted or overturned. An execution forces the community to assume
> forever the burden of moral certainty; it is a form of absolute speech
> that allows no waffling or equivocation. Deliberate murder, the
> community announces, is absolutely evil and absolutely intolerable,
> period." (What Do Murderers Deserve?, David Gelernter, Commentary, April
1998)
and now I get to my camus idea. there are things worse than murder, worse
than rape. under your system or responding in proportion to evil, how can
you philosophically deny one who pushes for a stricter punishment in an
effort to acheive retribution? I am all about consistency, and i fail to
see the consistency in this argument.
> > I posit that we are
> >making a statement that punishments serve an abstract subjective purpose
of
> >justice, rather than the greater tangible good of society.
>
> both are subjective. You just prefer your subjective good of society to
someone
> else's justice.
look, you can make everything subjective. when you increase your velocity
time moves slower for you, so its all subjective in that sense. the justice
system i advocate is not about providing spiritual solace to family or the
criminal., it is about protecting society. is it 'fair' that a first time
drunk driver - a public defender who does tons of pro bono - is released on
a suspended sentence after he injured a women ? no it really isn't. but if
the judge is convinced that the man is no threat, that he is ridiculously
scared of punishment, and that he is an asset to society, he can and DOES
release this lawyer. I know that you disagree, and that overwhelmingly the
justice system benefits ... but this isn't about honor or spiritual solace.
its about what best for the most. here, we clearly disagree. I still
shudder at the prospect of my government trying to take care of my
spirituality or some collective spirituality.
> even the
> >sanhedrin, a religious body charged with enacting God's punishment and
which
> >was allowed to use CP, only did so once every 70 years - on the principle
of
> >not being blood thirsty (ie using a subjective and arbitrary method of
> >punishment.)
>
> and what was the response to that? Find the exact quote and go foward a
few
> extra paragraphs. OK?
you mean the romans responce? go down a few paragraphs where? i learned
this in a religious studies class...
Mobutu Sese Seko
shar...@aol.com wrote on 11/14/1999 11:54 PM:
>
> In a discussion I had with Helen Prejean on NPR, she stated that being on
> death
> row is like being a monk, all you have the opportunisty to do is read, write
> and reflect. I agree. Undoubtedly, inmates are likely much more reflective
> when
> sentenced to death then when receiving any other punishment.
Tell us, when were you on NPR? I know Helen Prejean has been on a few times,
but when have you?
Mobutu Sese-Seko
Richard Jackson
ama...@bc.sympatico.ca (Mycos) wrote:
> You repeatedly claim that killing other people is wrong. What do you
> do.Kill people. That sends the right message, to our youth, eh.
>
> Son: Why did they kill that man?
> Father: Becuase he was a bad man.
>
> Lesson. Killing people you think are bad is right and justifiable.
>
> How sick.
>
Did it ever occur to you that there is another message there?
Son: "Why did they kill that man?"
Father: "Because he was a bad man. He killed other people to steal
(for money, or fun, etc.) Because he was a murderer, he was tried and
legally executed. His punishment for his horrible deed was to die.
Bad things happen to people who break the law. If you murder, you can
be executed."
Lesson: Murderers sometimes pay for their crimes with their lives.
--
Richard Jackson
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> Did it ever occur to you that there is another message there?
>
> Son: "Why did they kill that man?"
> Father: "Because he was a bad man. He killed other people to steal
> (for money, or fun, etc.) Because he was a murderer, he was tried and
> legally executed. His punishment for his horrible deed was to die.
> Bad things happen to people who break the law. If you murder, you can
> be executed."
>
> Lesson: Murderers sometimes pay for their crimes with their lives.
How about this one ...
Son Dad, why was that man killed?
Father Because he was a bad man, son.
S What did he do?
F He killed someone.
S And that's wrong, right?
F Yup. Pass me another beer, son.
S Here ...
F Thanks.
S So like ... if it's wrong to kill, why do we do it?
F No, son. It's wrong to murder; not to kill.
S I see. And who defines murder?
F The state.
S In other words, us, right?
F That's right.
S So what gives us the right to define it?
F Erm ... well, yunno Chuck, I don't know.
S 'Cos like ... if the state decides when to kill and when not
to kill, then any government can kill with impunity.
F With what?
S And get away with it.
F Oh, right. Yeah, I guess so.
<pause>
S Is Mom coming to the beach with us tomorrow?
F I dunno. Why?
S Nah, it's just that she doesn't like Melony, and I ...
well, yunno.
F Yeah, I know.
<both laugh>
F Damn mosquitoes !
S Yeah.
<pause>
S Dad?
F Yeah, son?
S Were the Nazis criminals?
F Damn tootin! They deserved to be hung!
S Hanged.
F Huh?
S Hanged, Dad. Meat is hung, people are hanged.
F Yeah? Well, whatever.
S 'Cos like ...
F Damnit, Chuck, why do you have to say "'Cos like" every time
you say something?
S I do not!
F You do too!
S You interrupted me, Dad.
F I did not!
S You did too! I was asking you a question!
F Well get on with it!
S I just want to know why the Nazis were criminals, that's all.
F They were criminals 'cos they killed millions of people, that's
why.
S But didn't you say that killing by the state wasn't wrong?
F What?
S 'Cos li - sorry. I mean, Hitler was elected. So he was the
legitimate head of the German state.
F He was?
S Yeah. He was.
F But he killed people that didn't do nothing.
S Double negative, Dad.
F What?
S "People that did nothing", or "people that didn't do anything".
Not both.
F Damn smart kids ... gimme another beer, son.
S Dad, you've had six already ...
F Who are you, my mother? Gimme a beer, dammit!
S If you insist. Here ... So if the state can decide when to
kill, how come the Nazis were hanged?
F They were hanged because they were criminals, son.
S Criminals?
F They killed people.
S No, Dad. You said that killing isn't wrong; murder is.
F Yeah, so they murdered six million people.
S No they didn't; they were the state, and the state decided that
Jews had to die.
F Yeah, but that was jennicide. That's different.
S Genocide, dad.
F Yeah. Whatever.
S But it wasn't.
F Yeah it was.
S It wasn't. The laws governing genocide were formulated after
1945. When the Nazis were killing Jews, there *were* no laws
about genocide.
F Is that a fact?
S Yes, it is.
F Well I'll be ...
S Quite possibly.
F Huh?
S Nothing, Dad. So, basically, the Nazis were hanged, for no
crime whatsoever.
F Erm ...
S Because if the death penalty in this country is right, because
we, the people, decide so, then the Final Solution was also
right, because the Germans decided it was so.
F You're confusing things, Chuck.
S No I'm not. Either a government can kill when it wants to,
or it can't. You can't change the laws to suit yourself.
F We can, son. We're Americans.
S Dad ...
F Look, Chuck, the murdering niggers ... I mean, blacks who kill
in this country, get due process. Endless appeals! The Jews
didn't get any of that. That's what makes it different.
S It doesn't matter, Dad. The state decides about due process.
The state decides what is a crime, and what isn't. If one
government (ours) can decide to kill for murder, then the
Germans were perfectly within their rights in killing Jews.
<pause>
F It's all politics, son.
S Right.
<pause>
S Does it deter, dad?
F It does, son. Our crime rates are dropping like a stone.
S That's a good thing, I guess.
<pause>
S How's grandma?
F I think she's fine. Why?
S Are we going to see her?
F Soon, I guess. I think your Mom wants to go down there for
Thanksgiving. Why?
S Just asking.
<pause>
S Dad?
F Yeah?
S If it deters, how come Texas has so many murders?
F Yeah, but they have less than before, son. There's the
proof.
S So why are their murder rates still higher than ours here in
Boston?
F Yeah, but they're dropping faster than ours.
S Wrong.
F Huh?
S The fall in murder rates is faster here in the NorthEast, than
in the South.
F Is that a fact?
S Yes it is.
F I hope grandma's OK.
S One thing for sure, Dad: the death penalty sure won't protect
her.
<pause>
F Son?
S Yes, Dad?
F Why do we kill murderers?
S For revenge, Dad.
F Revenge?
S Nothing more, nothing less.
F Why do we do that?
S I don't know, Dad. No other western country does it. Europe
has abolished the death penalty, and their murder rates are
about five or six times lower than ours. Canada abolished it
in 1976, and their murder rates plummeted.
F So in other words, it serves no purpose.
S Well, that's not quite true. It gives those who support it,
a warm and wet feeling in their shorts.
F Chuck !
S Well that's the way it is, Dad! We alone in the civilized
world kill our criminals, and we have just about the highest
murder rate in the western world. We're a goddam nation of
adolescents who react with our hearts before our minds. I'm
sick of it.
<pause>
F Pass me the cellphone, Chuck.
S Here. Who are you calling?
F Information.
<dials>
<pause>
F Yeah, I need the number for Amnesty International. Chuck, you
have a pen?
S Sure.
F Hello? Yeah, go ahead. 212-807-8400. Thanks.
S Dad, what are you doing?
F I'm joining, Son. I can't stand to see my fellow Americans
makes fools of themselves abroad, and murdering people just
to get a hard-on.
S Too cool. I love you, Dad.
F I love you too, Son.
<dials>
<pause>
F Hello? Is that Amnesty International? Hi, I'd like to join,
what do I have to do?
<fade>
--
Desmond Coughlan |Administrateur Système
des...@coughlan.net |UNIX, Linux, NT
http://212.198.64.228/
Mobutu Sese Seko
des...@tortue.coughlan.net wrote on 11/15/1999 10:03 AM:
>
> F Hello? Is that Amnesty International? Hi, I'd like to join,
> what do I have to do?
Desmond, you're awesome, lol!
Mobutu Sese-Seko
Mobutu Sese Seko
wrote on 11/15/1999 8:50 AM:
> Lesson: Murderers sometimes pay for their crimes with their lives.
Thats why they are sentenced to spend the rest of their miserable worthless
lives behind bars. Thats the end of a life.
Mobutu Sese-Seko
Trinity
<mob...@mobutu.za> wrote:
> Thats why they are sentenced to spend the rest of their miserable worthless
> lives behind bars. Thats the end of a life.
>
> Mobutu Sese-Seko
So you're okay with a death sentance as long as Old Age is the method
of execution?
Terry C. Shannon
Mobutu Sese Seko <mob...@mobutu.za> wrote in message
news:B455AF00.3CB6%mob...@mobutu.za...
> in article 80p32d$l4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com, Richard Jackson at
ri...@my-deja.com
> wrote on 11/15/1999 8:50 AM:
>
> > Lesson: Murderers sometimes pay for their crimes with their lives.
>
worthless
> lives behind bars. Thats the end of a life.
To all intents and purposes, that's true. Alas, it seems that some convicted
first-degree murderers manage to get paroled. And a fraction (size
debatable) of same manage to murder again.
Desmond Coughlan
> > F Hello? Is that Amnesty International? Hi, I'd like to join,
> > what do I have to do?
> Desmond, you're awesome, lol!
<blush>
Desmond Coughlan
> > Thats why they are sentenced to spend the rest of their miserable worthless
> > lives behind bars. Thats the end of a life.
> So you're okay with a death sentance as long as Old Age is the method
> of execution?
To quote Trinity, sometimes this newsgroup makes my head hurt.
Trinity, ever hear of anyone being 'old aged' to death?
Didn't think so.
Rev. Don Kool
Mobutu Sese Seko wrote:
> Richard Jackson at ri...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Lesson: Murderers sometimes pay for their crimes with their lives.
> Thats why they are sentenced to spend the rest of their miserable worthless
> lives behind bars. Thats the end of a life.
No my naive friend, it is not. Proven murderers sentenced to
"life" can murder again in prison, escape or be released. Proven
murderers who are justly executed can never murder again.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
Mobutu Sese Seko
des...@tortue.coughlan.net wrote on 11/15/1999 3:17 PM:
> Trinity, ever hear of anyone being 'old aged' to death?
>
> Didn't think so.
Oh come on Desmond, everyone knows that reality doesn't apply to this ng!
Get with it. Facts are of no importance to the Pro-DP folks. Appealing to
rationalism won't get you anywhere. You should have realized that by now.
Mobutu Sese-Seko
Mobutu Sese Seko
dead_p...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/15/1999 2:00 PM:
> In article <B455AF00.3CB6%mob...@mobutu.za>, Mobutu Sese Seko
> <mob...@mobutu.za> wrote:
>
>
>> Thats why they are sentenced to spend the rest of their miserable worthless
>> lives behind bars. Thats the end of a life.
>>
>> Mobutu Sese-Seko
>
> So you're okay with a death sentance as long as Old Age is the method
> of execution?
Its all a question of means and ends. The ends are the same, but your means
are different and, to me, barbaric.
Mobutu Sese-Seko
Mobutu Sese Seko
wrote on 11/15/1999 7:15 PM:
> There is only one problem with that statement. It isn't the end of
> their life. It might be the end of their free life, but not the end of
> their life. Don't forget, Mobutu, that in some states, life
> imprisonment does not mean for the rest of a convict's natural life.
> With good time, etc, sometimes life in prison means a couple of
> decades. Agreed, I wouldn't want to spend twenty to forty years in
> prison, but that might be a viable alternative to having my life
> ended. As long as a convict lives, they have hope of gaining their
> freedom. With Federal judges like William Wayne Justice around, even a
> LWOP sentence might not mean what it says. One ruling from a judge,
> and a murderer, or a whole group of murderers go free.
I know I will earn a lot of wrath with this comment, but I shall proceed
anyway. The average murderer is not evil. I do not hate murderers, but I
also certainly do not love them, as you would have it. By whatever
circumstances: passion, ignorance, lack of culture, boredom, fear, or what
have you, they have taken another life. They should be punished. I do think,
however, that many can be rehabilitated. I doubt very seriously that many of
you are the same men and women you were when you were 11. People change,
they can become more civilized. They can repent. They can fully appreciate
the magnitude and awfulness of their crimes. With a justice system focused
on rehabilitation, rather than adolescent vengeance, I believe many can be
successfully released in "only" twenty years or so. This has worked in many
other countries, namely Canada and much of Europe. Why must we cling to a
failed system, when more successful, if less macho, alternatives exist?
Mobutu Sese-Seko
Richard Jackson
>
worthless
> lives behind bars. Thats the end of a life.
>
> Mobutu Sese-Seko
>
>
There is only one problem with that statement. It isn't the end of
their life. It might be the end of their free life, but not the end of
their life. Don't forget, Mobutu, that in some states, life
imprisonment does not mean for the rest of a convict's natural life.
With good time, etc, sometimes life in prison means a couple of
decades. Agreed, I wouldn't want to spend twenty to forty years in
prison, but that might be a viable alternative to having my life
ended. As long as a convict lives, they have hope of gaining their
freedom. With Federal judges like William Wayne Justice around, even a
LWOP sentence might not mean what it says. One ruling from a judge,
and a murderer, or a whole group of murderers go free.
--
Richard Jackson
And you are the one who wanted to debate rather than flame, Mobutu?
Right!
Richard Jackson
deja.com
> wrote on 11/15/1999 7:15 PM:
>
> > There is only one problem with that statement. It isn't the end of
> > their life. It might be the end of their free life, but not the
end of
> > their life. Don't forget, Mobutu, that in some states, life
> > imprisonment does not mean for the rest of a convict's natural life.
> > With good time, etc, sometimes life in prison means a couple of
> > decades. Agreed, I wouldn't want to spend twenty to forty years in
> > prison, but that might be a viable alternative to having my life
> > ended. As long as a convict lives, they have hope of gaining their
> > freedom. With Federal judges like William Wayne Justice around,
even a
> > LWOP sentence might not mean what it says. One ruling from a judge,
> > and a murderer, or a whole group of murderers go free.
>
Mobutu,
We are so far apart in philosophy on this subject that I see no way for
us to discuss it. Apparently you are (if the recividity rates of 1 to
three percent for convicted murders are correct), willing to accept the
one to three innocent people who will be murdered for every one hundred
previously convicted murderers who are released. That recividity rate
is one generally accepted on this ng by abolitionists. I used it
because it is the lowest of the two rates I have found for released
murderers. Please note that this rate only reflects the KNOWN murders
committed by released convicted murderers. No one knows how many
unsolved murders there are from the same source.
I am not willing to see one innocent person die because a murderer is
parolled. I am much less willing to see from one to three die for
every one-hundred such releases, and cannot understand anyone who is.
I don't really give a tinker's damn what European nations do. Even
less about Canada. What works for someone else might or might not work
here. The US has different demographics that even our neighbor to the
north. Unless you can show me that countries which have the same
relative demographics as the US have a nearly zero recividity rate with
released murderers after they have served twenty years in prison with
rehabilitation, don't even try. Mostly, it is comparing apples to
oranges.
Daniel F. Hogg
<80qnmb$8ks$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> In article <B4562D86.3D17%mob...@mobutu.za>,
> Mobutu Sese Seko <mob...@mobutu.za> wrote:
> > in article 80q7mh$tdi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com, Richard Jackson at richj@my-
> deja.com
> > wrote on 11/15/1999 7:15 PM:
> >
With Federal judges like William Wayne Justice around,
> even a
> > > LWOP sentence might not mean what it says. One ruling from a judge,
> > > and a murderer, or a whole group of murderers go free.
Oh yes, the ever-lurking good-Texan attack on Federal Judge Justice. Do
explain to the group what your problem with Justice is. Is it that he
forced the TX Dept. of Corrections to behave in a civilized manner and
cease indefinite solitary confinement? Or is it that he insisted inmates
have a right not to be beaten and abused? - he limited the CO's fun. Or is
it that he believes inmates have a Constitutional right of access to the
courts? Or could it be that he just doesn't have the same low, mean
attitude toward inmates that so many Texans have? We need more judges with
his integrity, acumen and dedication to justice.
It seems a Hobbesian choice but you pose the question differently than I
would. Apparently you demand more than the jury, the law and common sense
provides for punishment. Certainly there are those who should not be
released, ever, but there are also 32-33 people who do merit release for
every one who does not. You would penalize those people for crimes and
behavior they don't exhibit. The problem is with the selection of who gets
paroled. Parole boards, like many other governmental agencies make
mistakes and typically, don't have consistent standards on which to base
their decisions. You've also lumped together under the category of murder,
those who commit capital murder and those who commit non-negligent
manslaughter - substantially different crimes with substantially different
rates of reoffense. We could reduce the rate of recidivism for murder to a
rate comparable to the rate in the general population. Would you be
willing to accept releases and paroles if it could be demonstrated the rate
at which they reoffend were no different than that for most other citizens?
> I am not willing to see one innocent person die because a murderer is
> parolled. I am much less willing to see from one to three die for
> every one-hundred such releases, and cannot understand anyone who is.
But you are willing to deny freedom and hope to 97-99 people because some
few are erroneously released. Nice.
[...]
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > Thats why they are sentenced to spend the rest of their miserable
> worthless
> > lives behind bars. Thats the end of a life.
> There is only one problem with that statement. It isn't the end of
> their life. It might be the end of their free life, but not the end of
> their life. Don't forget, Mobutu, that in some states, life
> imprisonment does not mean for the rest of a convict's natural life.
> With good time, etc, sometimes life in prison means a couple of
> decades.
Despite our having asked this countless times, Richard, Sharp, Trinity,
and all the other retentionists on this group, have yet to name one
convicted murderer sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, and
subsequently released without his sentence having been commuted.
Until we get the name of this mythical 'released LWOPer [sic]', the
claims of the deathies around here, that only execution protects the
public, will generate the mirth that they deserve.
[snip]
Richard Jackson
Judge Justice went far beyond his mandate as many federal judges do. He
started making law instead of enforcing it. Once he started making
judgements , he then became the law enforcement agency and continues
monitoring to this day although all of the provisions of his original
ruling have been met and he is retired.
I used the statistics which abolitionists themsleves, you included,
have used. If those stats were faulty, it is not my fault. I have
repeatedly asked which segment of the prison population was represented
with the recividity rates of from one to three percent without gaining
a successful answer. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to
where those rates came from and what data generated it?
> those who commit capital murder and those who commit non-negligent
> manslaughter - substantially different crimes with substantially
different
> rates of reoffense. We could reduce the rate of recidivism for murder
to a
> rate comparable to the rate in the general population. Would you be
> willing to accept releases and paroles if it could be demonstrated the
rate
> at which they reoffend were no different than that for most other
citizens?
>
Prove what you say.
> > I am not willing to see one innocent person die because a murderer
is
> > parolled. I am much less willing to see from one to three die for
> > every one-hundred such releases, and cannot understand anyone who
is.
>
> But you are willing to deny freedom and hope to 97-99 people because
some
> few are erroneously released. Nice.
>
> [...]
>
In my opinion, the life of one innocent is not worth the freedom of a
CONVICTED murderer, no. Would you be willing to sacrifice your life,
or better yet the life of a loved one in order to let one-hundred
convicted murderers be parolled onto the streets?
I do place move value on the lives of my family and myself than the
lives of others. I definitely place more value on the life of any
innocent person than the freedom of someone who has already taken
another life. After all, while they might not be free, incarcerated
murderers are still alive. Behind bars, they still have the abillity to
think and learn, to love, to enjoy the beauty in music or art. While
they are not free, they can still develop relationships with other
people, worship as they choose, and wake up every morning with the hope
that the new day is better than the old one. That is one hell of a lot
more than their victims had a chance to have, isn't it?
low_...@webtv.net
executions i think that would be a deterrent
son:dad why are they killing that man dad:because that man
killed a person
a person like you or i or your mother
low_...@webtv.net
old fashion abuse
let me put it to you like this you make it sound like you son is a piece
of your property so lets take another exp. and apply it
Your driving down the street in your car and it back fires and quits ,so
this makes you angry and you call it a few name s like ignorant little
shit, so you go out open the hood look around ALITTLE and try to start
the car again it doesn't start (not the out come you wanted) so you step
it up and walk out and get violent ,you hit the car and put a dent in
it,and now you decide to call a wrecker to come get your car and take it
to the shop the mechanic say wes you ran it out of gas and oil ,it was
your eresponsibility , you did not pay attention to what was going
on,ultimate this is your fault because you let things get this bad,you
did not try to figure out what was wrong you just got angry ,that did
not help any thing ,discipline is suppose to teach right, well all it
did is make your child afraid to talk to you and now he wont ask you
questions i mean the really hard ones because he's afraid your going to
get angry and you know what happens when dear old dad gets angry he
starts abusing and calls it discipline ,wes get a clue
Trinity
> Oh yes, the ever-lurking good-Texan attack on Federal Judge Justice. Do
> explain to the group what your problem with Justice is. Is it that he
> forced the TX Dept. of Corrections to behave in a civilized manner and
> cease indefinite solitary confinement?
Heya Dan;
Interesting post, and points well made.
I want to visit the "civilized" concept again. I dislike this
argument. Why? Because it's open ended. Let's say we accept that the
DP is 'uncivilized", that leads to solitary being "uncivilized", and so
on. The bottom line is this: Prison isn't supposed to be "civilized".
It's a place of punishment for folks that have proven that they cannot
live in civilized society.
It seems obvious to me that the only truely "civilized" environment is
one of total freedom and access to all rights guaranteed citizens of a
free and democratic state. So to that extent, we will never, EVER be
able to treat criminals in a "civilized" fashion, unless we simply
ignore them and allow them to live as normal citizens.
Surely there is a baseline standard of decency that must be applied to
criminals. But what we must all realize is this: They they do NOT
have the rights and privledges that non-criminals enjoy.
There will always be someone that will complain no matter how high we
set the bar. If the only sanction we applied to criminals was
incarceration in their homes, there would be people complaining how
'uncivilized' such a practice is.
Further, especially in this group, "uncivilized" has the intellectual
and logical significants of the word "nigger". It's a phrase used
almost exclusively by the ignorant to insult and inflame. Every time I
see the terms "bloodthirsty" and "uncivilized" in this group, I picture
a Klan member babbling on about racial superiority. =)
In any event, good post. I even managed to ignore the dreaded "c"
word. =)
Rev. Don Kool
Desi Coughlan <des...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
> Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[...snip...]
> Until we get the name of this mythical 'released LWOPer [sic]', the
> claims of the deathies around here, that only execution protects the
> public, will generate the mirth that they deserve.
Melvin Geary.
Lur...@webtv.net
old fashion abuse
Intelligent and morally sound people like myself recognize it as
discipline.
=====================================
let me put it to you like this you make it sound like you son is a piece
of your property
=====================================
Not at all. He is a moral agent who is capable of learning that there
are consequences to one's own actions. Unlike a car, as in your
sophmoric example.
=====================================
so lets take another exp. and apply it Your driving down the street in
your car and it back fires and quits ,so this makes you angry and you
call it a few name s like ignorant little shit,
=====================================
Actually, I'd probably curse and call AAA.
====================================
so you go out open the hood look around ALITTLE and try to start the
car again it doesn't start (not the out come you wanted) so you step it
up and walk out and get violent ,you hit the car and put a dent in
it,and now you decide to call a wrecker to come get your car and take it
to the shop the mechanic say wes you ran it out of gas and oil ,it was
your eresponsibility , you did not pay attention to what was going
on,ultimate this is your fault because you let things get this bad,you
did not try to figure out what was wrong you just got angry ,that did
not help any thing ,
=====================================
That is a course of action that a negligent and spoiled brat would take.
However, since I am niether of those, I not only fill my car up with gas
every week, but I call AAA whenever I have a problem with my car that I
cannot solve myself.
===================================== discipline is suppose to teach
right, well all it did is make your child afraid to talk to you and now
he wont ask you questions i mean the really hard ones because he's
afraid your going to get angry and you know what happens when dear old
dad gets angry he starts abusing and calls it discipline
=====================================
I answered his "hard" questions. But since he did not like the answers,
he got snotty, sarcastic and disrespectful. I then enforced my
discipline upon him. As a moral agent, unlike my car, he will learn
that when he converses with me, he will treat me in a respectful manner
and not get pissy when I demonstrate my more advanced experience and
wisdom.
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
Lur...@webtv.net
I'll go back to my shell and think about this argument, but till then
=====================================
Considering how much abolitionists talk about LWOP as an alternative for
the DP, I have to wonder why abolitionists have little or no interest in
making any effort in actually establishing it for all murderers and
making it stick. Think about how many thousands of innocent lives you
could save by doing so, and yet, this does not interest you. You seem
to be infinitely more interested in abolishing what threatens the guilty
the most (DP) than what threatens the innocent the most (parole)
Could it be that you subconsciously know that I'm right and that LWOP is
just a sham that cannot be maintained in a world ruled by entropy where
laws and practices in human society continuously change and you do not
want to waste your time on a myth? Or is it because you do not value
innocent lives enough to go through the trouble and your primary
interest is only to protect and preserve the guilty? Perhaps it is
both?
In any case, unless abolitionists actually establish a system that
garutees as low a recidivism rate as the DP does and demonstrates its
effectiveness for everyone to see, then there is absolutely no reason
why the public should abandon its overwealming support for the DP for
your speculations and wishful thinking.
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
Natsam
Richard Jackson wrote:
> In article <01bf3035$dbbed5a0$8a230c8a@choggdf_nt>,
> "Daniel F. Hogg" <da...@lexis-nexis.com> wrote:
> > Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
>
<snip>
Good luck getting an answer, Richard. :)
>
>
> > those who commit capital murder and those who commit non-negligent
> > manslaughter - substantially different crimes with substantially
> different
> > rates of reoffense. We could reduce the rate of recidivism for murder
> to a
> > rate comparable to the rate in the general population. Would you be
> > willing to accept releases and paroles if it could be demonstrated the
> rate
> > at which they reoffend were no different than that for most other
> citizens?
> >
>
> Prove what you say.
I can only guess that Dan is referring to longer sentences.
If that's the case, however, liberals will soon be complaining
about the increase in prison violence, overcrowded
prisons, and sentences which are too harsh.
Regards,
Ed
<rest snipped>
Mobutu Sese Seko
wrote on 11/16/1999 1:25 PM:
> In my opinion, the life of one innocent is not worth the freedom of a
> CONVICTED murderer, no. Would you be willing to sacrifice your life,
> or better yet the life of a loved one in order to let one-hundred
> convicted murderers be parolled onto the streets?
Oh sure, I'd probably agree to die to stop a hundred murderers (no sarcastic
comments please), but with the DP, that process isn't voluntary. You might
as well pick a random person off the street, scare them senseless for a
decade or two and then murder them. This does not reduce crime. Stop this
endless cycle of mediaeval revenge.
Mobutu Sese-Seko
Mobutu Sese Seko
low_...@webtv.net at low_...@webtv.net wrote on 11/16/1999 12:01 PM:
> i feel sorry for your children ,i mean theres nothing like a little good
> old fashion abuse
> let me put it to you like this you make it sound like you son is a piece
> of your property so lets take another exp. and apply it
> Your driving down the street in your car and it back fires and quits ,so
> this makes you angry and you call it a few name s like ignorant little
> shit, so you go out open the hood look around ALITTLE and try to start
> the car again it doesn't start (not the out come you wanted) so you step
> it up and walk out and get violent ,you hit the car and put a dent in
> it,and now you decide to call a wrecker to come get your car and take it
> to the shop the mechanic say wes you ran it out of gas and oil ,it was
> your eresponsibility , you did not pay attention to what was going
> on,ultimate this is your fault because you let things get this bad,you
> did not try to figure out what was wrong you just got angry ,that did
> not help any thing ,discipline is suppose to teach right, well all it
> did is make your child afraid to talk to you and now he wont ask you
> questions i mean the really hard ones because he's afraid your going to
> get angry and you know what happens when dear old dad gets angry he
> starts abusing and calls it discipline ,wes get a clue
right, and then... (!?!)
Lur...@webtv.net
Father Because he was a murderer, son.
S So like ... if it's wrong to kill, why do
we do it?
F No, son. It's wrong to murder; not to
kill.
S I see. And who defines murder?
F The Dictionary.
S In other words, us, right?
F Wrong.
S 'Cos like ... if the state decides when to
kill and when not
to
kill, then any government can kill with impunity.
F No, son. Not in this country. Here, the
legislature makes laws determining how the DP is used. And the
legislatuure is elected by the people.
(Son pauses as he considers this inteligent insight.)
S Dad?
F Yeah, son?
S Were the Nazis criminals?
F Yes, son. They were.
S I just want to know why the Nazis were
criminals, that's all.
F They were criminals 'cos they killed
millions of innocent people, that's
why.
S But didn't you say that killing by the
state wasn't wrong?
F What?
S 'Cos li - sorry. I mean, Hitler was
elected. So he was the
legitimate head of the
German state.
F Actually, Hitler was put in power by those
who were already in power. Hitler campaigned heavily for the presidency
of Germany twice in the 30s, But he got his ass kicked by Hindenburg
both times. He was later given Chancelorship of Germany by German
officials without the people's consent. That's how madmen are often put
in power in that part of the world. You should really study history a
little more before making such ill informed assumptions, son.
S Sorry, Dad. (Bows to his father's
superior wisdom and experience) ... So if the state can decide when to
kill,
how come the Nazis were hanged?
F They were hanged because they were
criminals, son.
S Criminals?
F They killed millions of innocent people.
S No, Dad. You said that killing isn't
wrong; murder is.
F Yeah, so they murdered six million people.
S No they didn't; they were the state, and
the state decided that
Jews
had to die.
F Yeah, but that was genocide. That's
different.
S It wasn't. The laws governing genocide
were formulated after
1945.
When the Nazis were killing Jews, there *were* no laws
about genocide. Because if the death penalty in this
country is right, because
we, the people, decide
so, then the Final Solution was also
right, because the
Germans decided it was so.
F Let me clear up two major and offensive
misconceptions that you are a victim of, son. First of all, the
holocaust was Hitler's decision, not the German people's. He didn't
need thier permision to carry out his heinous deeds. That is the
essence of a dictatorship. Secondly, even if one can argue that the
holocaust wasn't illegal under Nazi Germany's laws, you still cannot
compare that racial genocide to the American DP because there is a
difference between racial and religious minorities, and murderers.
Placing Jews on the same moral level as viscious murderers is a
sophmoric travesty and an extreme insult to every Jewish individual in
the world.
S It doesn't matter, Dad. The state decides
about due process.
The state decides what
is a crime, and what isn't. If one
government (ours) can
decide to kill for murder, then the
Germans were perfectly
within their rights in killing Jews.
F There you go again, comparing Jews to
murderers! There is no end to your sophistry.
S Right.
<pause>
S Does it deter, dad?
F It does, son. Our crime rates are dropping
like a stone.
S That's a good thing, I guess.
<pause>
S How's grandma?
F I think she's fine. Why?
S Are we going to see her?
F Soon, I guess. I think your Mom wants to
go down there for
Thanksgiving.
Why?
S Just asking.
<pause>
S Dad?
F Yeah?
S If it deters, how come Texas has so many
murders?
F They had many murders to begin with.
That's why they had so much incentive to reinstate the DP. Now they
have less than before, son.
S So why are their murder rates still higher
than ours here in
Boston?
F Like I said, they had more murders there to
begin with, so of course its going to take time before they drop to our
level..
S The fall in murder rates is faster here in
the NorthEast, than
in the South.
F In any case, the fact that the murder
rates are dropping along with an increase in the rate of executions
certianly punches a hole in the "brutalization effect" hypothisis, which
is a ridiculous notion, indeed.
S Yes it is.
S But Dad. No other western country has the
DP.. Europe
has abolished the death
penalty, and their murder rates are
about five or six times
lower than ours.
F Tell that to Russia and the nations in the Eastern part of
that misbegotten continent. They have had such a rottn history, that
European nations only abolished the DP in a misguided attempt to make up
for their ultra-violent past. But it needen't concern us, for the US
didn't become the greatest nation on Earth by listening to foriegners
tell us how to run our affairs. Especially when they're Europeans.
S Canada abolished it
in 1976, and their
murder rates plummeted.
F Not as fast and as hard as ours is.
S So in other words, it serves no purpose.
Well, that's not quite true. It gives those who support it,
a
warm and wet feeling in their shorts.
F Chuck !
S Well that's the way it is, Dad! We alone
in the civilized world kill our criminals,
and we have just about the highest murder
rate in the western world. We're a goddam nation of
adolescents who react with our hearts before our minds. I'm
sick of it.
F Given that sarcastic and offensive remark, Id' say that what
ever you are thinking with, it is not with your heart or your mind,
because you cannot possibly have either if you are sophmoric enough to
place Jews on the same moral level as murderers and speak such slander
about those who disagree with you!
Pass me the cellphone, Chuck.
S Here. Who are you calling?
F A Foster Care Home. Given your profound
sophistry, there is no way you can possibly be my son. My genes would
never allow such stupidity in my offspring.
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
Sir Walter Raleigh
> the DP, I have to wonder why abolitionists have little or no interest in
> making any effort in actually establishing it for all murderers and
> making it stick. Think about how many thousands of innocent lives you
if you're interested, I think LWOP is used too often too ... especially for
drug dealers. not that they're good people, but i don't see what a 70 year
old who was arrested in 1975 is gonna do out of jail.
> could save by doing so, and yet, this does not interest you.
actaully, making a better gradation of punishments by giving LWOP less often
would make LWOP a more severe punishment, and more effective as a detterent
to other criminals
> You seem
> to be infinitely more interested in abolishing what threatens the guilty
> the most (DP) than what threatens the innocent the most (parole)
i don't want to abolish parol because, when properly used, it saves money,
and put a person who we've rehabilitated back in society, free, like we all
want to be. now you'll say hes free to kill, i know that's a problem but
certainly that can be fixed withing the system of detainment.
> Could it be that you subconsciously know that I'm right and that LWOP is
> just a sham that cannot be maintained in a world ruled by entropy where
> laws and practices in human society continuously change and you do not
> want to waste your time on a myth?
you'd be better off speculating on the stock market. I really have no clue
how you would know whats in my subconscious.
my turn: could it be that you're so full of the moral certitude that wa
instilled in your brain in leiu of self-esteem that you want to invoke a
punishment that is enternal so that if anyone ever diverges in opinion from
you or find out that you were morally wrong the effects of you moral
enforcement will be ingrained in history?
> Or is it because you do not value
> innocent lives enough to go through the trouble and your primary
> interest is only to protect and preserve the guilty? Perhaps it is
> both?
you got me, I'm a criminal, in jail actually, getting an ivy degree over the
internet.
> In any case, unless abolitionists actually establish a system that
> garutees as low a recidivism rate as the DP does and demonstrates its
> effectiveness for everyone to see, then there is absolutely no reason
> why the public should abandon its overwealming support for the DP for
> your speculations and wishful thinking.
actully, to your credit, that point was not absolutely ridiculous. i claim
that the burden of proof for a more severe punishment in on PROPONENT'S
shoulders, not mine, because it is you that is advocating the taking away of
someones right to life, a natural right. LWOP has limited support of
working over life with parole in some cases, and can be used when needed to
protect people. in our civilization, with our morals of the right to life,
due process, and against cruel punishment, it is the obligation of the
potential enforcers and their proponents (you) to give proof for taking away
these rights for a societal motive.
low_...@webtv.net
a child everything that came from your mouth was correct and when
addressing your father it was in the absolute utmost respect right even
when your father was wrong you stood there and let him be wrong right
wrong , you are to much of a arrogant ass to do that .
low_...@webtv.net
did not see the point so let me put in to terms for you ,#1 :striking
your child is considered abuse in the USA ,the is a punishable
crime#2:you have just taught your child to use violence when he feels he
is being superiorly is being threatened #3: you yourself are adding to
the violent element witch is crumbling this great country ,wes you need
to work out your ego problem ,because you make yourself look extremely
arrogant and unable to see such a vital point.
low_...@webtv.net
low_...@webtv.net
group that might give him answers and they might be the wrong one s,but
since Mr.arrogant abuser(father and another CC of a bad one)has broken
down one of the most vital lines he has with his child, communication,
with his extremly productive form of disapline ( he felt threatened by
the childs question becuase he is insecure with himself so he had to
show him who is boss)his son who now resents his father,will not talk to
him.think of childhood as a piece of clay to be molded and formed if you
hit it you will not form anything but a imprint of your fist and when
you do that much damage, it more then likely cant be fixed.
Desmond Coughlan
Son: Will killing him bring back his victim, Pop?
Father: No, son.
S: So why are we killing him, then?
F: 'Cos we're a Godless nation of vengeful adolescents,
son.
--
Desmond Coughlan |System Administrator
Desmond Coughlan
> > In my opinion, the life of one innocent is not worth the freedom of a
> > CONVICTED murderer, no. Would you be willing to sacrifice your life,
> > or better yet the life of a loved one in order to let one-hundred
> > convicted murderers be parolled onto the streets?
> Oh sure, I'd probably agree to die to stop a hundred murderers (no sarcastic
> comments please), but with the DP, that process isn't voluntary. You might
> as well pick a random person off the street, scare them senseless for a
> decade or two and then murder them. This does not reduce crime. Stop this
> endless cycle of mediaeval revenge.
Indeed, you might as well say, 'One of you two is gonna hang for
this. Since you're the nigga, you're elected.'
Not that this could ever happen ...
Lur...@webtv.net
No, you are such an arrogant ass, that you absolutely refuse to
recognize the distinction between violence and discipline. And you have
absolutely no respect for parental respect and authority, so you are not
discouraging abusive parents, you are encouraging abusive kids. You are
such a spoiled little brat, you cannot tell the difference between
disagreeing with someone and being snotty and sarcastic.
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
Lur...@webtv.net
did not see the point so let me put in to terms for you ,#1 :striking
your child is considered abuse in the USA ,the is a punishable crime
Wrong, disciplne is not illegal in the US, because here, we have the
intelligence and moral judgement not to confuse discipline with abuse.
So in spite of a few incidents in which that distinction has been
erased, the right for a parent to discipline his child has not been
violated by the morally handicapped.
======================================
#2:you have just taught your child to use violence when he feels he is
being superiorly is being threatened
======================================
No, I have taught my child to treat his parent with more respect for
there are concequences to pay for poor behavior, and he'll be a better
person for it.
======================================
#3: you yourself are adding to the violent element witch is crumbling
this great country
=====================================
Our crime rates are crumbling and our economy is among the most stable
in the world. That does not sound like "crumbling" to me. The only
time it was, was when we had lost the moral judgement and intelligence
to tell the difference between crime and punishment. Now that we have
recovered our senses, we are also recovering our stability that this
nation had lost at the hands of liberal sabateours.
=====================================
,wes you need to work out your ego problem ,because you make yourself
look extremely arrogant and unable to see such a vital point.
====================================
To one with such poor moral judgement and intelligence, I cannot help
but sound arrogant since my knowledge and wisdom is vastly superior to
yours.
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
Dave Proctor
Mobutu Sese Seko <mob...@mobutu.za> wrote in message
news:B4562352.3D0C%mob...@mobutu.za...
> in article slrn830qme...@tortue.coughlan.net, Desmond Coughlan at
> des...@tortue.coughlan.net wrote on 11/15/1999 3:17 PM:
>
> > Trinity, ever hear of anyone being 'old aged' to death?
> >
> > Didn't think so.
>
> Oh come on Desmond, everyone knows that reality doesn't apply to this ng!
> Get with it. Facts are of no importance to the Pro-DP folks. Appealing to
> rationalism won't get you anywhere. You should have realized that by now.
I trust you do not include *ALL* of the retentionists in that statement?
--
DaveProctor
thadocta AT dingoblue.net.au
Dave Proctor
news:slrn832n1t...@tortue.coughlan.net...
> Despite our having asked this countless times, Richard, Sharp, Trinity,
> and all the other retentionists on this group, have yet to name one
> convicted murderer sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, and
> subsequently released without his sentence having been commuted.
And there lies the problem. It is open to politicians (lowest form of life
in the universe) to commute the sentences in the future. Commutation from
LWOP to Life+50 does not seem much, but it clears the way for eventual
release. Followed by commutation to Life+25, and all of a sudden, our
murderer who has been there for 30 years is up for release.
> Until we get the name of this mythical 'released LWOPer [sic]', the
> claims of the deathies around here, that only execution protects the
> public, will generate the mirth that they deserve.
Kooky provided one. I take it with a grain of salt thoug (as I do all of his
posts). I am too lazy to research it (particularly since I know that you
will, to refute him) - I will reply to your reply to him.
Lur...@webtv.net
group that might give him answers and they might be the wrong one s,but
since Mr.arrogant abuser(father and another CC of a bad one)has broken
down one of the most vital lines he has with his child, communication,
with his extremly productive form of disapline ( he felt threatened by
the childs question becuase he is insecure with himself so he had to
show him who is boss)
No, he enforced discipline on his son because he behaved in a snotty and
sarcastic manner when he did not like his father's replys. Therefore,
he will learn that when he communicates with his father, he will do so
with respect and not resent him when the father demonstrates his
superior wisdom and experience.
=====================================
his son who now resents his father,will not talk to him.think of
childhood as a piece of clay to be molded and formed if you hit it you
will not form anything but a imprint of your fist and when you do that
much damage, it more then likely cant be fixed.
====================================
The parents who are intelligent enough to tell the difference between
abuse and discipline have the most well behaved childeren because they
are taught to respect their elders and that there are negative
consequenses to pay for bad behavior. Those are positive lessons that
aid them into productive lives in adulthood. That is the case for 99%
of those who are disciplined.
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
Desmond Coughlan
> > Despite our having asked this countless times, Richard, Sharp, Trinity,
> > and all the other retentionists on this group, have yet to name one
> > convicted murderer sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, and
> > subsequently released without his sentence having been commuted.
> And there lies the problem. It is open to politicians (lowest form of life
> in the universe) to commute the sentences in the future. Commutation from
> LWOP to Life+50 does not seem much, but it clears the way for eventual
> release. Followed by commutation to Life+25, and all of a sudden, our
> murderer who has been there for 30 years is up for release.
Well there have been life without parole sentences handed down in the
United States for over 25 years (California was, I believe, the
first), and so far, not one single person has been released from a
'LWOP' sentence.
> > Until we get the name of this mythical 'released LWOPer [sic]', the
> > claims of the deathies around here, that only execution protects the
> > public, will generate the mirth that they deserve.
> Kooky provided one. I take it with a grain of salt thoug (as I do all of his
> posts). I am too lazy to research it (particularly since I know that you
> will, to refute him) - I will reply to your reply to him.
Your faith in my diligence is touching, David, but 'Kooky' has been in
my KILLfile for about four or five days now, and I have no intentions
of removing him in the (vain) hope that he has something intelligent
to say.
If, however, you are referring to the 'Melvin Greary' (or whatever)
character that Don mentioned a few months back, you should be aware
that he was *not* released from a 'LWOP' sentence.
As someone else pointed out, using the release of 'LWOP'-commuted
prisoners to argue that life imprisonement without parole doesn't
exist, is like using the release of formely condemned and commuted
prisoners, to claim that the death penalty 'doesn't exist'.
Lur...@webtv.net
S: So why are we killing him, then?
It is not about revenge either. Justice is about enforcing consequences
for one's own actions to endorse personal responsibility. We cannot
expect anyone to take responsibility for their own actions if these
consequences are not enforced in full.
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
low_...@webtv.net
a vary abusive home , my father beat the hell out of me each and every
day, i can tell you from EXPIRENCE that your so called parenting
tacticks DO NOT work ,i know that you as a parent have to be a leader a
mentor ,a parent , not a dictator ,showing leadership is much more
productive ,then demanding it.lets say your 35 and your father is 60 hes
says he does not beleive in a certin way of doing things,you in yourmind
think there is a better way and you say something about it to your
father he takes it in just the wrong manner says your insalting his
supirior intelegence and wisdom ,calls you a sarcastic ignorent snotty
little shit and smacks you across the face .IS THAT PRODUCTIVE?What has
you father accomplished?I know wes that if i saw you stike your child i
would call the cops and the D.H.S. and then let them decide ,you see i
know what they would decide , you would no longer have your child
EXPIRENCE is the key word here.
low_...@webtv.net
low_...@webtv.net
Lur...@webtv.net
I don't have a dog.
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
Lur...@webtv.net
That is a short-sighted cliche that has no foundation in the real world.
I like the way a quote from Robert A. Heinlien's Starship Troopers puts
it:
"The idea that "violence doesn't solve anything" is a historically
untrue and immoral doctrine. Violence, naked force, has settled more
issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is
wishful thinking at its worst. People that forget this basic truth have
always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
Lur...@webtv.net
You are right, I don't. I grew up in a house where my parents practicd
discipline. Everytime my sister and I got out of line and acted
disrespectful and misbehaved, we got a spanking.
=====================================
i grew up in a vary abusive home , my father beat the hell out of me
each and every day,
====================================
Then that is not discipline. That is abuse. And even from that, you
didn't grow up with the lesson that violence is the key to solving
everything. So how can I believe you when you say that childeren
develop into deviant criminals when they are disciplined when you
yourself did not when you were abused? I was discilined, and I turned
out all right. So do 99% of all childeren who were disciplined the same
way I was.
====================================
i can tell you from EXPIRENCE that your so called parenting tacticks DO
NOT work,
=====================================
You don't even know my parenting tactics. All you know is what I wrote
in response to an anti's dialouge in the form of a parody. And again, I
point out to you the difference between abuse and discipline.
=====================================
i know that you as a parent have to be a leader a mentor ,a parent , not
a dictator ,showing leadership is much more productive ,then demanding
it.
=====================================
Agreed, but there are times when a firm hand is required or else your
kids will walk all over you.
=====================================
lets say your 35 and your father is 60 hes says he does not beleive in a
certin way of doing things,you in yourmind think there is a better way
and you say something about it to your father he takes it in just the
wrong manner says your insalting his supirior intelegence and wisdom
,calls you a sarcastic ignorent snotty little shit and smacks you across
the face .IS THAT PRODUCTIVE?
======================================
You don't listen, do you? I have told you repeatedly that the
discipline I enforce is in response to a son showing disrespect and
offence to his father. Not because he disagrees and expresses his views
in a respectful manner. Besides, the scenrio above is based on a parody
I wrote in response to some anti's version where the son talks down to
his father because he disagrees with him which you have twisted totally
out of proportion.
=====================================
What has you father accomplished?I know wes that if i saw you stike your
child i would call the cops and the D.H.S. and then let them decide ,you
see i know what they would decide , you would no longer have your child
EXPIRENCE is the key word here.
=====================================
Oh, that's brilliant. What are you going to do? Send a cop over to a
families house every week to make sure that childeren are not being
disciplined? And when they are, are you going to tear their childeren
away from their parents and put them in camps by the hundereds of
thousands because their parents don't conform to your ideals of how to
raise them? Sounds like the beginnings of a witch hunt to me.
And lastly, do you have any kids? If not, then you have absolutely no
right to pretend to know the best way to raise them towards people who
do have children and bear the burden of raising them.
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
Lur...@webtv.net
for drug dealers. not that they're good people, but i don't see what a
70 year old who was arrested in 1975 is gonna do out of jail.
often would make LWOP a more severe punishment, and more effective as a
detterent to other criminals
money, and put a person who we've rehabilitated back in society, free,
like we all want to be. now you'll say hes free to kill, i know that's a
problem but certainly that can be fixed withing the system of
detainment.
Hogwash! How good are we at making these judgements about who will
murder again and who wont? Up to 13,000 American citizens are murdered
every year by released and paroled criminals. Here are some more facts
compliments of JFA:
Death penalty opponents spend millions of dollars and countless man
hours fighting the legal execution of, at most, 100 of our worst human
rights violators per year, when they do nothing to fight for the end of
those inhumane parole and probation release policies which result in the
needless injury and slaughter of the innocent. "The U.S. Department of
Justice estimates that convicted criminals free on parole and probation
. . commit 'at least' 84,800 violent crimes every year, including
13,200 murders, 12,900 rapes, and 49,500 robberies." American Guardian,
May 1997, pg. 26. Incredibly, this slaughter does not include violent
crimes committed by repeat offenders who are released and who are not on
"supervision". Where is the compassion in honoring the previous victim's
suffering and in protecting the human rights of future victims?
Opponents' actions show virtually no compassion for the victims of
violent crime or concern for future victims, yet, they exhibit
overwhelming support for those who violate our human rights and murder
our loved ones.
Now tell me again of the benovolence and wisdom of parole and probation.
======================================
you got me, I'm a criminal, in jail actually, getting an ivy degree over
the internet.
======================================
Are you serious? If so, then your opinion is non credible since you are
in the position to comprimise public safety and the safety of decent
citizens by endorsing things that would put them in danger in exchange
for your personal benifits. That's why you soften the severe and
horrendous consequences of freeing and coddling criminals, because you
are one yourself and the more the penal system is sabotaged and public
safety is comprimised, then the more likely you are to be free which is
obviously all you care about.
=====================================
i claim that the burden of proof for a more severe punishment in on
PROPONENT'S shoulders, not mine, because it is you that is advocating
the taking away of someones right to life, a natural right. LWOP has
limited support of working over life with parole in some cases, and can
be used when needed to protect people. in our civilization, with our
morals of the right to life, due process, and against cruel punishment,
it is the obligation of the potential enforcers and their proponents
(you) to give proof for taking away these rights for a societal motive.
======================================
What you are talking about are criminal rights. You obviously do not
view public safety as a right or the freedom from persecution at the
hands of criminals. Since you are a criminal yourself, I have no reason
to assume credibility for anything you claim is a "natural right" since
your type are notorious for manipulating people to gain release and
repeat your crimes.
No, since one of the main reasons the civil authority has been
extablished is to protect its citizens from violent criminals, the
burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those who tend to be negligent
and derelect in that duty. Since so many thousands of citizens have
been brutally murdered in increasing numbers under the liberal
influences in the criminal justice system, people have absolutely no
reason to have any faith in LWOP or any other liberal standard that has
comprimised the public's safety and trivialize the risks and flaws in
thier standards.
The plain, simple truth is that the DP has a recidivism rate of 0! That
beats the hell out of LWOP or any other half assed alternative. So
unless you are responsible enough to bear the burden of proof of the
better effectiveness of your standards, people will have no reason or
incentive to abandon the DP.
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocties.com/~lurch7/cp.html
Richard Jackson
a
> > CONVICTED murderer, no. Would you be willing to sacrifice your
life,
> > or better yet the life of a loved one in order to let one-hundred
> > convicted murderers be parolled onto the streets?
>
> Oh sure, I'd probably agree to die to stop a hundred murderers (no
sarcastic
> comments please), but with the DP, that process isn't voluntary. You
might
a
> decade or two and then murder them. This does not reduce crime. Stop
this
> endless cycle of mediaeval revenge.
>
>
>
That's not what I said. Would you die, or be willing to sacrifice the
lifes of your loved ones to let a hundred convicted murderers walk free
from prison?
Are you saying that if we executed criminals immediately upon
conviction of capital murder, you could support it?
Murders are executed because they were specifically identified and
convicted of killing innocent victims. They are not randomly picked.
Capital punishment is far older than Medieval times. It goes right
back to the Hammurabi's Code at least. The concept that one human
being who willingly takes the life of another without just cause losing
his or her own life likely predates written history.
--
Richard Jackson
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
DedNdogYrs
of killing innocent victims.>
Too often by people who thought the wrong person looked like the right one.
Dogs & children first.
Trinity
<dednd...@aol.com> wrote:
Look Dog, if you're gonna cite your previous unsubstantiated post as
backup for OTHER unsubstantiated posts, I'm afraid you're going to have
to provide some facts.
Please show us the actual artical you keep referring to regarding
"5,000 innocent people wrongly convicted each year blah blah blah."
DedNdogYrs
innocent people wrongly convicted each year blah blah blah.">
I already told you, I saw it on MSNBC. If there was an "artical" I don't know
where it can be found.
Dogs & children first.