The GOP Death Penalty Mafia
AbelM...@webtv.net
AbelM...@webtv.net
AbelM...@webtv.net
david
> All those who have been executed have been indigents, poor people, who
>have had underpaid Lawyers assigned to them,
Does anyone happen to know if that's really true? I know there's a
one or two folks on death row in Texas who could afford their own
lawyer. It just seems likely that given the amount of people Texas has
executed in the last 10 years, at least one of them had their own
attorney, as opposed to a court-appointed one.
Or have there really been none at all?
Desmond Coughlan
> > All those who have been executed have been indigents, poor people, who
> >have had underpaid Lawyers assigned to them,
> Does anyone happen to know if that's really true? I know there's a
> one or two folks on death row in Texas who could afford their own
> lawyer. It just seems likely that given the amount of people Texas has
> executed in the last 10 years, at least one of them had their own
> attorney, as opposed to a court-appointed one.
>
> Or have there really been none at all?
Ask Sharp; he seems to have a list of 'wealthy murderers' who have been sent
to death row over the years.
Just don't ask him to tell you who's on the list ...
--
Desmond Coughlan |Restez Zen ... UNIX peut le faire
des...@coughlan.net
http://www.coughlan.net/desmond
http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/fs2000/
Larry Smith
Most of these people on death row are guilty. There is
the possibility that there are some very very few innocents
but not many.
I don't want an innocent to be executed, but I don't want a
beast to be let free either.
Can we bridge two ideologies here?
david wrote in message ...
david
>Be softhearted if you want. It may help you to sleep.
>
>Most of these people on death row are guilty. There is
>the possibility that there are some very very few innocents
>but not many.
>
>I don't want an innocent to be executed, but I don't want a
>beast to be let free either.
>
>Can we bridge two ideologies here?
What ideologies? It was a simple question. Personally, I don't see
how it matters to anybody's argument whether there's been 0, 1 or 2
non-indigents executed in Texas, I'm just curious what the numbers
are.
What does 'softhearted' have to do with that? Or is your newsreader
broken and randomly following up the wrong messages?
A Planet Visitor
a)Opinion?
b)Dogmatic lunatic assertion?
Of the only two options available, pick either a) or b).
"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@lievre.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8ivkee....@lievre.voute.net...
> On Sat, 27 May 2000 15:38:48 +0200, Larry Smith <lar...@online.no>
wrote:
>
> > Be softhearted if you want. It may help you to sleep.
> >
> > Most of these people on death row are guilty. There is
> > the possibility that there are some very very few innocents
> > but not many.
> >
> > I don't want an innocent to be executed, but I don't want a
> > beast to be let free either.
> >
> > Can we bridge two ideologies here?
>
> No. The murder of an innocent by a wrongly released murderer is
> the lesser of two evils.
Avital Pilpel
> No. The murder of an innocent by a wrongly released murderer is
> the lesser of two evils.
As long as it isn't someone you know, of course.
Avital Pilpel
Avital Pilpel
> Crime rates have been going down in every category, all over America,
> due to an improved economy, all over America, crime rates have gone down
> dramatically, except in New York city.
huh? Crime is WAY down in NY City as well, sensationalist reports of
isolated incidents notwithstanding.
Besides, it's dishonest to excuse two guys who shot up a restaurant by
saying it was because of rage against racism, not to mention the fact
that most of the victims were black as well as the perpetrators in this
case...
Avital Pilpel
A Planet Visitor
at first glance I wanted to question his opinion that there are
more racists than non-racists in our society (which I believe is
false, but which I also agree still exists to a large extent just
about everywhere, and will probably take a few generations to
eradicate), and other things he wrote... even some things I
agreed with, after a fashion, and up to a point. But the more
I looked at his post, the more I realized that this was not a
rational post. This was the kind of post that, no matter what
you say you are painted with that broad brush of being a bigot,
if you disagree with any part of the dialog (? Ravings?). Anyway,
you're right in my opinion... in every respect. Using race as an
excuse to commit murder, is more abominable than any bigots
excuse to be a bigot. I believe that violence and mayhem and
murder are begat in many of the black communities because of
"ghettoization," and provide the reasons for elevated occurrences
of those events. This is a problem which each of us have to face
in our own minds, and hope that from generation to generation,
such problems will be better solved than they are today. But ALL
races have to work together to achieve this (as trite as that
sounds). One can no more condone murder as occurred in
Queens, than one can condone racially motivated murder of
blacks. Let's hope that future generations do a better job of
solving this problem, then we have done.
"Avital Pilpel" <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.10005...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu...
p@u.c
Then again, precisely the same thing could be said in response to:
"The execution of an wrongfully convicted innocent is the lesser
of two evils."
--
Patrick Crotty
e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
home page: http://home.uchicago.edu/~prcrotty
Bad Habit
wrote:
>On 27 May 2000, Desmond Coughlan wrote:
>
>> No. The murder of an innocent by a wrongly released murderer is
>> the lesser of two evils.
>
>As long as it isn't someone you know, of course.
>
>Avital Pilpel
Indeed, such proclamations as made by Desmond do no
service to the anti-dp cause. I can't help but wonder if that
is his intent.
Bad Habit
Denise
Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8ivkee....@lievre.voute.net...
> On Sat, 27 May 2000 15:38:48 +0200, Larry Smith <lar...@online.no> wrote:
>
> > Be softhearted if you want. It may help you to sleep.
> >
> > Most of these people on death row are guilty. There is
> > the possibility that there are some very very few innocents
> > but not many.
> >
> > I don't want an innocent to be executed, but I don't want a
> > beast to be let free either.
> >
> > Can we bridge two ideologies here?
>
> the lesser of two evils.
On this point I have to disagree with you. I do not now, nor will I ever
support capitol punishment, but I firmly believe that if circumstances occur
that give question as to whether a person is guilty or not, the person
should at best be given a new trial. I do not believe that person should be
released unless the same factors that convicted them are used as a yardstick
to prove their innocence. I also happen to believe that most of the people
on death row belong in prison for the rest of their natural lives, and that
every effort should be made to keep them there. If the only solution to the
DP Pro and Anti debate would be that we either had to release murderers into
our society or we had to execute them, I would have to support execution.
Fortunately that is not our only option.
Denise
that_frog_...@my-deja.com
Coughlan) wrote:
>
>No. The murder of an innocent by a wrongly released murderer is
>the lesser of two evils.
Desi, that is a crazy response. Think about it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
A Planet Visitor
Desi's mantra. "This above all, to thine own self be stupid."
All logic fades in the face of Desi's obsessive need to
absolve murderers of ALL responsibility for their actions.
<that_frog_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8gp9m4$ds9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Larry Smith
You must have had a very warped childhood.
Desmond Coughlan wrote in message ...
>No. The murder of an innocent by a wrongly released murderer is
>the lesser of two evils.
>
>
Larry Smith
'
Denise wrote in message <39301...@news.qnet.com>...
>
>Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net> wrote in message
>news:slrn8ivkee....@lievre.voute.net...
>> On Sat, 27 May 2000 15:38:48 +0200, Larry Smith <lar...@online.no> wrote:
>>
>> > Be softhearted if you want. It may help you to sleep.
>> >
>> > Most of these people on death row are guilty. There is
>> > the possibility that there are some very very few innocents
>> > but not many.
>> >
>> > I don't want an innocent to be executed, but I don't want a
>> > beast to be let free either.
>> >
>> > Can we bridge two ideologies here?
>>
>> No. The murder of an innocent by a wrongly released murderer is
>> the lesser of two evils.
>
>On this point I have to disagree with you. I do not now, nor will I ever
>support capitol punishment, but I firmly believe that if circumstances
occur
>that give question as to whether a person is guilty or not, the person
>should at best be given a new trial. I do not believe that person should be
>released unless the same factors that convicted them are used as a
yardstick
>to prove their innocence. I also happen to believe that most of the people
>on death row belong in prison for the rest of their natural lives, and that
>every effort should be made to keep them there. If the only solution to the
>DP Pro and Anti debate would be that we either had to release murderers
into
>our society or we had to execute them, I would have to support execution.
>Fortunately that is not our only option.
>Denise
>>
>>
Snag
> There are about two times more minorities (Blacks and Hispanics) who
>are on death row, in Texas, than there are Whites who are on death row
>there.
> All those who have been executed have been indigents, poor people, who
>have had underpaid Lawyers assigned to them,some of whom have been seen
>sleping in court, napping and snoring, while their client was being
>sentenced to death. One Lawyer, the one who represented the last woman
>executed, he has actually been convicted of fixing cases to help the
>Prosecution win.
<snip>
>To express support is cheap, but it
>remains to be seen if this verbal support will actually be followed with
>funding for the DNA technology which can be quite expensive.
<snip>
Yes, talk is cheap. Since there are so many of you that believe that innocent
people are going to be (and have been) executed and better legal representation
will help, why not start a fund to get them better lawyers instead of spending
so much time and energy spouting on this NG? Do any of you abolitionists do
anything productive at all for your cause?
<P align=center>"I command the sheriff of the county to lead you away to some
remote spot, swing you by the neck from a knotting bough of some sturdy oak,
and let you hang until you are dead."<P align=center>~ Judge Roy Bean ~
JIGSAW1695
From: sn...@aol.comcom (Snag)
Date: 5/28/00 12:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20000528000212...@ng-ch1.aol.com>
>From: AbelM...@webtv.net
> There are about two times more minorities (Blacks and Hispanics) who
>are on death row, in Texas, than there are Whites who are on death row
>there.
==============================
Could it be because blacks and hispanics commit more murders that merit the DP
(Post Furman) than whites?
Lets not rule out that possibilitiy.
Matthew Snyder
: Could it be because blacks and hispanics commit more murders that merit the DP
: (Post Furman) than whites?
you must be talking about killing white people.
matthew
JIGSAW1695
Date: 5/28/00 12:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <8gq8vi$oek$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>
==============================
It depends on the circumstances of the crime. If the muder fell within the
criteria of Furman v Georgia, then the DP is meritied. If it didnt, then the
crime does not merit the DP.
The factor you fair to understand is that the facts of the crime must be
clear. After the judge passes the sentence of death, he has to write a report
that is made available to the reviewing court as well as the convicted murderes
atorney.
The judge has to detail the facts of the crime with the criteria of the Furman
decision. If the facts do not fit the criteria, then there can be no DP.
At this point, race or economic factors are not involved.
So when you say that more blacks are on death row than whites, it means that
more blacks killed within that criteria. Its not racist, it is factual.
And...are there really more blacks on death row than whites????
Yours in International Solidarity and Brotherhood
Jigsaw
remember:
Maintain eternal viligence against the vast right wing conspiracy!!
John G. Spragge
news:ZeQX4.13855$C9.2...@news1.online.no...
> I don't want an innocent to be executed, but I don't want a
> beast to be let free either.
If you think capital punishment in any way prevents the
state from letting "beasts" free, disabuse yourself.
Only a tenth of a percent of all killers in the United
States get executed, and American courts at all
levels show no disposition to substantially increase
the number (appeal reform can only increase the
proportion to 1%).
The majority of people who have killed will get back
on the streets; indeed, I suspect that your country
has more perpetrators of criminal homicide walking
the streets than you have incarcerated.
Capital punishment, as currently practised in the
United States, does not offer an effective way to
either prevent the release of killers, or to prevent
their reoffending.
--
J. G. Spragge ---------- standard disclaimers apply
Essays on capital punishment and network ethics at
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~spragge
Desmond Coughlan
> > No. The murder of an innocent by a wrongly released murderer is
> > the lesser of two evils.
> As long as it isn't someone you know, of course.
I should hope that, should someone close to me ever be murdered by
someone released from a murder conviction, I would have the
intelligence to see beyond my own selfish whims, and desire for
'justice' (i.e. revenge).
Sadly, it would appear that precious few Americans have that
ability ... :-(
Desmond Coughlan
> >> No. The murder of an innocent by a wrongly released murderer is
> >> the lesser of two evils.
> >As long as it isn't someone you know, of course.
> Indeed, such proclamations as made by Desmond do no
> service to the anti-dp cause. I can't help but wonder if that
> is his intent.
I fail to see how my expressing a personal opinion (which in this
case, and coincidentally, is an undeniable Truth) can do no service
to the 'anti-dp [sic] cause'.
It is one of the basic tenets of human rights that it is better
that ten guilty men go free, than that one innocent man be unjustly
punished.
That is the way enlightened men have considered justice since time
immemorial, and that is the way that one day, when your country has
evolved to a social and human level somewhat more recent than the
Middle Ages, the United States will think, too.
Desmond Coughlan
> >No. The murder of an innocent by a wrongly released murderer is
> >the lesser of two evils.
> Desi, that is a crazy response. Think about it.
Unlike many on the retentionist side of this sad debate, by the
time my fingers hit my keyboard, I have already thought long and
hard about the question of capital punishment.
I can find no rational, intelligent, logical argument that supports
capital punishment, and that cannot be defeated. I know of no
intelligent person who supports the death penalty. If the death penalty
is considered in a rational manner, there is only one possible
conclusion to be drawn : it must be abolished.
Bad Habit
Coughlan) wrote:
>On Sat, 27 May 2000 18:52:57 GMT, Bad Habit <badha...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> >> No. The murder of an innocent by a wrongly released murderer is
>> >> the lesser of two evils.
>
>> >As long as it isn't someone you know, of course.
>
>> Indeed, such proclamations as made by Desmond do no
>> service to the anti-dp cause. I can't help but wonder if that
>> is his intent.
>
>I fail to see how my expressing a personal opinion (which in this
>case, and coincidentally, is an undeniable Truth) can do no service
>to the 'anti-dp [sic] cause'.
I see, perhaps you might have written your original proclamation
as follows:
"No. I believe the murder of an innocent by a wrongly released
murderer is the lesser of two evils."
Your second little proclamation could have been written as:
"I fail to see how my expressing a personal opinion (which I believe
is an undeniable Truth) can do no service to the 'anti-dp [sic]
cause'."
There now, isn't that a little better?
Bad Habit
A Planet Visitor
I just love it when those with a different agenda tell us
FACTS, and expect us to follow like sheep, those
OPINIONS they have. It sounds so pompous and
superior to all of us rather human mortals, doesn't it??
Every chance I get, as long as you continue to pontificate
statements as FACT, when in FACT they are only your
OPINION, I intend to point that out. Now that's a FACT,
and not an OPINION. Just when do you intend to grow
up and realize that your OPINION does not make it so.
And that doesn't even mean that I don't agree with some
of the OPINIONS you have, as in this case. I merely
disagree with the presentation of any OPINION as a
foregone conclusion of FACT, unless such OPINION can
be further justified as being a true FACT. Would you
support the DP if certain suppositions were to assume
different values in your mind? If "yes," then please
elaborate... if "no," then say "no"... and we will have a
whole other argument, which I am well prepared to
address logically and morally, unless your reasons for
saying "no," are based on irrational dogmatic principles.
"John G. Spragge" <spr...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:J62Y4.668$xJ2....@news.itd.umich.edu...
A Planet Visitor
other than ridicule because I believe that is all they deserve,
your latest blathering interested me, as to just proving what
your shallow values really represent. Allow me to present
two arguments that I'd really like to see you address to this
newsgroup if you seriously feel ALL capital punishment is
wrong. Of course, not only you but everyone in this
newsgroup who reads this thread... judged to be a miniscule
number... may offer their view also.
1) Since these represent theoretical arguments let us assume
in this first case, that you are provided with certain information,
namely the ability to see events which will transpire if you make
certain personal choices such as "Use the DP," or "Don't use the
DP." Assume a murderer has killed one person, is caught,
prosecuted and condemned to death. You have the ability to
see into the future, and you KNOW that if this person is not
executed, he will at some point in the future, either escape from
prison, or be released on parole. You further know that he will,
if released, murder you and your family. You are now given the
final word in society's use of the DP. Would you agree or disagree
that the DP is appropriate?
2) Given that you are a locomotive engineer on a train, you are
solely in control of the train, and the switches on the tracks the train
will travel on. You and no other. You have free will. On the train
you are transporting 10,000 political prisoners to an extermination
camp (forget the analogies between past true situational events).
You are also secretly involved in a clandestine operation opposed to
the government. You have worked with operatives in that clandestine
operation, and ahead is a switch which in one direction, will take the
train illegally across another border to a safe haven, and in the other
direction will go to the camp. Your fellow operatives are waiting on
the other side of the border. As you approach the switch, which is
presently set to continue to the camp, you start to turn the switch,
when you see a group of soldiers guarding the tracks between the
switch and the border. These soldiers will not or cannot remove
themselves from the path of the train if you throw the switch. Do you
throw the switch, understanding you will kill the soldiers and save
the prisoners, or do you not throw the switch, because to do so
means you are the instrument of the soldier deaths, and the prisoners
are only your responsibility to deliver to the camp, and further than
that
you have no involvement or responsibility for their subsequent death.
Do you throw the switch?
If yes... Would you change directions if it were a truck you were
driving
with 50 prisoners in the back, and 10 soldiers in the path of the detour
road to the safe border, who would certainly die? Yes or No?
If yes... Would you change directions if it were a van you were driving
with 10 prisoners, who secretly were also part of your opposition
group, and there were 10 soldiers in the path of the detour road, and
they would certainly die? Yes or No?
If yes... Would you change directions if it were a car, and you were
with your family, and you knew, although you had only been ordered
to the camp, that, when you arrived, the authorities fully intended to
execute you and your family, and once again if you detoured 10
soldiers in the path of your vehicle would die? Yes or No?
And finally... same situation but only you are in the car, and once
again you know that you will be executed in you arrive in the camp.
Yes or No?
Desi... I don't really need your answers, but if you are prepared to
provide them, perhaps everyone in this newsgroup, can develop a
more meaningful understanding of your moral position regarding the
DP. A position which presently represents no view at all, but merely
your stupid attempts to flail at a society you know nothing about,
rather than the DP.
Let me observe this, however, as Churchill once is rumored to have
remarked:
Churchill was at a Dinner and a Duchess assigned to the seat next
to him began a conversation with him, and the conversation turned
to the promiscuity of that current generation and the easy view they
took of sex. As she expounded on this subject, Churchill asked her,
theoretically, if she would have sex with him for a million dollars, and
she observed that perhaps she might for that amount. He then
queried her as to whether she would have sex with him for $10,
and she responded indignantly, "Of course not... what do you think
I am, a Prostitute?" Whereupon he replied, "We've already established
that, we're only working on the price now." I'm just trying to figure
out with you what your price is that you attach to the use of the DP.
"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@lievre.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8j25gf....@lievre.voute.net...
> On Sat, 27 May 2000 20:03:23 GMT, that_frog_...@my-deja.com
<that_frog_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > >No. The murder of an innocent by a wrongly released murderer is
> > >the lesser of two evils.
>
Snag
>Although I never respond to any of your posts with anything
>other than ridicule because I believe that is all they deserve,
>your latest blathering interested me, as to just proving what
>your shallow values really represent. Allow me to present
>two arguments that I'd really like to see you address to this
>newsgroup if you seriously feel ALL capital punishment is
>wrong. Of course, not only you but everyone in this
>newsgroup who reads this thread... judged to be a miniscule
>number... may offer their view also.
Desi's response, if any should be intersting.
Bad Habit
Coughlan) wrote:
>I know of no intelligent person who supports the death penalty.
Heh. I give a 3.5 to this little effort.
Bad Habit
JIGSAW1695
Date: 5/28/00 4:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20000528160358...@ng-ch1.aol.com>
>From: "A Planet Visitor"
>Although I never respond to any of your posts with anything
>other than ridicule because I believe that is all they deserve,
>your latest blathering interested me, as to just proving what
>your shallow values really represent. Allow me to present
>two arguments that I'd really like to see you address to this
>newsgroup if you seriously feel ALL capital punishment is
>wrong. Of course, not only you but everyone in this
>newsgroup who reads this thread... judged to be a miniscule
>number... may offer their view also.
Desi's response, if any should be intersting.
===============================
Desi is always "amusing", but never "interesting".
Snag
Ya got me there!
david
>1) Since these represent theoretical arguments let us assume
>in this first case, that you are provided with certain information,
>namely the ability to see events which will transpire if you make
>certain personal choices such as "Use the DP," or "Don't use the
>DP." Assume a murderer has killed one person, is caught,
>prosecuted and condemned to death. You have the ability to
>see into the future, and you KNOW that if this person is not
>executed, he will at some point in the future, either escape from
>prison, or be released on parole. You further know that he will,
>if released, murder you and your family. You are now given the
>final word in society's use of the DP. Would you agree or disagree
>that the DP is appropriate?
What's interesting about this particular argument is that it's
actually somewhat irrelevant that the person has commited murder once,
isn't it?
Wouldn't you be facing the same moral dilemma regardless of the past
history of the person? To make that clearer: somebody has never
committed a crime before in their life, but you have the ability to
see into the future, and you KNOW that if this person is not executed
he will murder you and your family. Is execution appropriate for that
person?
In terms of moral decisions, it's the same situation. If we're
killing people because of possible *future* acts, rather than for
punishment of their past acts, then why are their past acts relevant
at all?
Let's make it even more fun. Somebody is on death row, and you know
that they are innocent of their crime (and innocent of any crime), and
you have the evidence to prove it. And yet, in your magic crystal
ball, you also know that if they are released, they will kill you and
your family. Do you allow them to be executed?
And the answer is: you kill them. Obviously, who wouldn't?. But you
never try to justify your act by claiming that it is moral. You bite
the bullet and walk proudly into hell.
But the relevance to the DP is dubious. First, of course, we don't
have that crystal ball. And second, one of the functions of
government is to deflect the justice system away from personal
vengeance. Even if *I* would kill a danger to my family, simply
because they *are* my family, that doesn't mean that it is appropriate
for a government to do so. That way lies madness.
However, the opposite question is interesting as well, as long as
we're dealing with hypotheticals. Somebody has committed a long
series of brutal rape/murder/tortures. Choose your own crime here,
make it as heinous as possible, and certainly involve your own family
members. But you look into your magic crystal ball and see that they
will never murder again, that whatever violent streak they had had
somehow passed.
Is the DP appropriate? Do we punish them with capital punishment for
their crimes? Or is capital punishment actually irrelevant to
punishment for crime, and only appropriate to prevent future crimes?
If the goal is to prevent future crime, then you certainly can't call
it capital *punishment*.
>2) Given that you are a locomotive engineer on a train, you are
>solely in control of the train, and the switches on the tracks the train
>will travel on. You and no other. You have free will. On the train
>you are transporting 10,000 political prisoners to an extermination
>camp (forget the analogies between past true situational events).
>You are also secretly involved in a clandestine operation opposed to
>the government. You have worked with operatives in that clandestine
>operation, and ahead is a switch which in one direction, will take the
>train illegally across another border to a safe haven, and in the other
>direction will go to the camp. Your fellow operatives are waiting on
>the other side of the border. As you approach the switch, which is
>presently set to continue to the camp, you start to turn the switch,
>when you see a group of soldiers guarding the tracks between the
>switch and the border. These soldiers will not or cannot remove
>themselves from the path of the train if you throw the switch. Do you
>throw the switch, understanding you will kill the soldiers and save
>the prisoners, or do you not throw the switch, because to do so
>means you are the instrument of the soldier deaths, and the prisoners
>are only your responsibility to deliver to the camp, and further than
>that
>you have no involvement or responsibility for their subsequent death.
>Do you throw the switch?
Of course you do, you're in a war. And, yet, most people do realize
that wartime needs are different than everyday needs. In fact, one of
the personality traits (to generalize, of course) most recognizable in
supporters of capital punishment is the belief that it is *always*
wartime, that we are always under siege by others.
It's a viewpoint, I might add, that is most common in the South, which
has always had a siege mentality and a tendency to view certain people
as "outside society" (a tendency that stems both from the history of
segregation and from Fundamentalist Christianity). It's probably the
main reason the the most ardent support for the DP in the US has
always been in the Southern states.
Is the crime rate like a war, where people from the outside are
entering your society and committing atrocities? Or are those
criminals actually a part of society to begin with, not outsiders at
all? The question is unanswerable with any kind of mathematical
certainty, and yet the answer that each individual gives to that
question will largely determine one's feelings towards not only
capital punishment, but what one feels an appropriate answer to the
problem of crime would be.
The difference between the two views is not what answers you give, but
what questions you ask.
Desmond Coughlan
> >Desi is always "amusing", but never "interesting".
> Ya got me there!
It would appear that, with Drewl's more hysterical obsession tamed
by a combination of his ISP cracking down on him, his wife getting
fed up with federal agents calling at the door each time that he
tries (and fails ... ROTFLMAO !!!) to hack into a 'toy' UNIX server,
and the NSA letting him know in no uncertain terms that if he doesn't
stop harassing innocent people on the Internet, he'll lose his job,
there is another contender for the 'This Newsgroup Exists to Fuel My
Obsession with Desi [sic]' award ...
Or was that sentence too long for 'ya'(sic) ?
Snag
>It would appear that, with Drewl's more hysterical obsession tamed
>by a combination of his ISP cracking down on him, his wife getting
>fed up with federal agents calling at the door each time that he
>tries (and fails ... ROTFLMAO !!!) to hack into a 'toy' UNIX server,
>and the NSA letting him know in no uncertain terms that if he doesn't
>stop harassing innocent people on the Internet, he'll lose his job,
>there is another contender for the 'This Newsgroup Exists to Fuel My
>Obsession with Desi [sic]' award ...
>
>Or was that sentence too long for 'ya'(sic) ?
Don't flatter yourself. You aren't THAT amusing.
John G. Spragge
news:DmdY4.6615$TZ2.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
[ complaints about fact and opinion deleted ]
Fact: You only execute about 0.1% of homicide
perpetrators in the United States (roughly one in
a thousand). Don't take my word for it; look up the
US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Fact: According to statistics published by the
same body, the bureau of justice statistics, you
have a recidivist homicide rate between 3 and
5 percent.
Fact: The highest number or reports of all
recidivist homicide in Canada (including
reports by victim's groups and advocates
of capital punishment) do not top 1%.
Fact: the average killer in the United States,
excluding the perpetrators of unsolved homicides
(again according to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics) serves about 10.5 years.
First conclusion: Experience strongly suggests
that the current implementation of capital
punishment in the United States has no
effect on the recidivist homicide rate.
Second conclusion: Since most killers live much
longer than ten years after their offences, it makes
sense (particularly given the recent decline in
the US. homicide rate) that more killers will
have finished their sentences than remain
incarcerated.
In short, I have stated either facts or logical
conclusions. Debate can take place on
that basis, for those who choose to muster
the evidence and reason logically from the
known facts.
> Would you
> support the DP if certain suppositions were to assume
> different values in your mind?
This issue does not concern what goes on in my mind.
Given convincing evidence that capital punishment
saved innocent lives, I would support it. I have yet to
see any such convincing evidence.
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > > Can we bridge two ideologies here?
> > No. The murder of an innocent by a wrongly released murderer is
> > the lesser of two evils.
> On this point I have to disagree with you. I do not now, nor will I ever
> support capitol punishment, but I firmly believe that if circumstances occur
> that give question as to whether a person is guilty or not, the person
> should at best be given a new trial. I do not believe that person should be
> released unless the same factors that convicted them are used as a yardstick
> to prove their innocence. I also happen to believe that most of the people
> on death row belong in prison for the rest of their natural lives, and that
> every effort should be made to keep them there. If the only solution to the
> DP Pro and Anti debate would be that we either had to release murderers into
> our society or we had to execute them, I would have to support execution.
> Fortunately that is not our only option.
At no point have I advocated the release of those guilty of murder, Denise.
In the situation you describe above, i.e. a case where someone judged to
be guilty, may indeed be innocent, I do not suggest that he be released
without a retrial.
However, I stand by my premise that, true to the noble ideals of those who
enshrined respect for human rights into our laws, if we had the choice of
executing the innocent or releasing the guilty, I would choose the latter.
Note that this is not the same as either releasing the guilty, or executing
the guilty.
A Planet Visitor
questions. <GG>
But as to question 1), and it's corollaries, in general:
No, I believe it was relevant to the purpose I intend. In fact
there are 3 possibilities (perhaps even more I haven't thought
of, but that wasn't my intent to provide an all-inclusive list
of possibilities). Given the ability to see all events in the
future, the 3 are: 1) the person convicted has killed, 2) the
person is innocent, 3) the ability to see is only as to FUTURE
events, and when such events transpire, the fact that
they were known prior to the murder having been
previously committed or not committed, is erased from
the memory of the one who can see into the future, thus
they have no way of knowing the ACTUAL guilt or innocence
of the convicted, after being convicted, and of course, to
close the loophole David always finds, they lack the ability
to eliminate the future killer before he/she is convicted, and
this knowledge vanishes immediately upon the conviction,
thus has NO impact on their final decision. I purposely used
the "positively having killed before" to see Desi's LEVEL of
reaction, to his avowed distaste for the DP, if any. You
obviously picked up on the additional fact of past guilt or
innocence being a known factor. I have to watch you
closely when presenting arguments with escape clauses.
But, the closer actual perception that we use in our
individual feelings as to the DP, is probably the 3rd
example. We see the threat, but we have no way of
knowing if the threat is real, other than the PERCEPTION,
someone, somewhere (a Justice System, and a Jury of 12),
has found the right man. Then in our eyes, we do not just
perceive the threat, but we KNOW it is real. Those more
in favor of the DP, as myself, must make their own moral
determination whether they will take the CHANCE of society
executing an innocent, regardless, because they represent
a KNOWN threat to their family, since they have the
ability to see into the future. Others may choose differently.
The second part possibility of a person having killed extensively
in the past, but seeing into the future, one can positively
see they will never kill again, and the question is asked, "Do
we kill them?" presents a whole different philosophical view
of the DP, which I wished to avoid. And that is the question
of "Vengeance," for past events. You know I personally
have the view that vengeance has no purpose in morally
examining the DP, but other's may view differently. I have
no qualms over their views. I simply believe it is mistaken,
IMHO, and has no moral purpose when evaluating the
SOCIAL implication of the use of the DP to the entire
body of society.
Now as to the second question. Nowhere did I use the
word "War." This is simply an example of a repressive
regime, some of whose members oppose that regime
as clandestine members of a group committed to that
end. This is a grassroots movement and not a group
of saboteurs. A group who's only purpose is saving
the lives of those POLITICAL prisoners who share their
viewpoint. You may view it as a "personal" war... but if
you do, then you have to accept the fact that many
members of our society, view the DP as a "War," on
violence, regardless of whether this view holds
water or doesn't, and regardless of how effective
it is in implementation, while others see their objection
to the use of the DP as a "war" in the opposite direction.
It's a viewpoint of one's own opinion. Just as those
who oppose the example of this repressive regime.
And in point of fact, it IS mathematically quantifiable if
one assumes certain principles. Disregard all other
aspects of the problem except as it applies to an
individual's perception of the DP and their perception
of the number of innocents on the train. The 10
soldiers represent innocents executed in the process
of applying the DP. The Engineer is a moral engineer,
his (let's assume a masculine morality because of the
testosterone effect, which is often perceived by
those opposed to the DP, of complicity in the use of the
DP), throwing or not throwing the switch represents
each individual's perception of how moral it is to throw
the switch. It's a rather simple construct of a
logarithmic curve. If there are 10 innocents on the
track (representing those convicted but innocent), and
10,000 innocents on the train (representing those possibly
to be murdered in the future by not throwing the DP switch
(an absurd example, but bear with me), then we CAN
quantify our PERCEPTION of this immorality (or lack of
morality, if one wishes) as a ratio of 10/10,000. Now as
less and less innocents are on the train, this ratio decrease
to a value of 10/0. Naturally zero is not defined
mathematically, thus is not permissible, but we CAN compute
the LIMIT of 10/x as x APPROACHES zero. This is a most
uncomplicated mathematical evaluation, and this limit tends to
infinity. Thus immorality of the decision to throw the switch is
infinite as x approaches zero (if we do not consider those
who would claim "kill them all, regardless... because they must
have done something to be there.") Now consider the LIMIT
of 10/x as x APPROACHES infinity, with x >0, by definition.
And we observe that this value DECREASES logarithmically,
and is in fact, defined as zero. This is the standard formula
for the logarithmic curve (Limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity =
0, with x >0). Thus, everyone's PERCEPTION of the use
of the DP lies somewhere on this curve, unless they are either
an absolute bigot, irrational thinker, or would prefer the
extermination of every living soul on the planet except
those 10 innocent. And the quantification of the value is the
perception, taken by each individual. We can even reduce
the 10 to a value of 1, which changes nothing in our
mathematical evaluation, except the personal PERCEPTIONS
encountered at values surrounding innocents on the train,
vs. innocents on the track. With 1 innocent on the track,
we would reach what could be called a normalization of
values when in exchange 1 was on the train. The
procession of immorality (morality??) from absolute
immorality to absolute morality, lies upon this curve.
Everyone, except the most hard-fast DOGMATIC
opponent or defender of the DP, MUST agree that at
some point the DP is totally immoral, and at some
larger value, whatever that value might be in their own
PERCEPTION, MUST become moral. The number
of innocents we PERCEIVE to be on the train,
determines our philosophical bent regarding the DP, and
our subconscious mathematical quantification of what
values represent immorality changing to morality. I'm
not sure of this point, but I believe you yourself stated
somewhere in another thread that if 7 (?), could be
saved by executing 1, you would be for the DP, and
regardless, your viewpoint certainly must fall on the curve.
I didn't mean to go into it like this, but you mentioned
mathematically not quantifiable, and it is. What values we
attach to whatever factors we personally presume affects
our PERCEPTION of where the DP lies on the curve... is
once again, in "the eye of the beholder," but is fully
quantifiable to that observer if they wish to examine
their own conscious and values. I have no problem with
people like you who voice their opinion and state the
reasons for those opinions in reasonable terms, and
reasonable examples. What I object to, and will continue
to object to are those, such as Desi and others (you know
who you are!!), who would presume to be more aware of
the social problems facing our nation, then those of a more
reasonable nature, and would presume to declare the DP
is immoral by definition, or even by our present application.
I personally believe it is moral in principle (MY OPINION,
not a statement of fact, as another poster has claimed I
said), and I also believe in its present application it
certainly borders on immorality; however, I (MY OPINION),
remain hopeful that the deficiencies in the process can be
reduced dramatically, through our efforts, at exposing those
deficiencies. Further, I remain suspect, just on the face
of it, anyone who tells me that the statistics, the data,
the opinion of experts, or the "glorious" opinion of their
own illustrious selves, grants them the POWER to STATE
as a PRINCIPLE, that what they see through their eyes,
is a self-evidentiary fact of nature, and those who see
otherwise, are missing some facility of perception which
THEY have been blessed with. And don't get me started
on my view of nature, and mankind as it affects the DP.
Because the bandwidth of this newsgroup is finite.
But my purpose in questioning Desi, was that I was just
hoping mostly to get Desi's reaction, so I could try to pin
down exactly how immoral he thinks the DP is, in his own
mind, and what factors he uses to think (?) as he does.
That's also the reason I attached a personal effect rider
to his decision making process, further on.
"david" <da...@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8j32vj...@tristan.local.dom...
John G. Spragge
"John G. Spragge" <spr...@umich.edu> wrote:
> Fact: According to statistics published by the
> same body, the bureau of justice statistics, you
> have a recidivist homicide rate between 3 and
> 5 percent.
...just to correct a typo: the recidivist homicide
rate should read between three and 6.6 percent. And
in the interests of clarity, the 3 and the 6.6 come
from different measures. The estimate of 6.6% for
recidivist comes from a the last major DOJ study of
parole, which analysed results from 1983, and tracked
a large number of released inmates. It reported an
arrest rate for homicide of 6.6% among those paroled
after serving time for homicide convictions (within
three years of release).
--
J. G. Spragge ----- standard disclaimers apply
Essays on crime, punishment, politics, and the
internet: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~spragge
A Planet Visitor
making claims as to facts. And then when confronted by
questions as to those facts, you provide statistics or those
learned opinions of those learned individuals we should all
bow down to, which we should all assume have a divine,
fundamentally accurate value, and we should perceive what
you demand that we perceive from these same statistics.
To save myself some time let me just refresh readers
memories as to past statement made by you and I:
It was stated in a post:
Do you agree with the New Hampshire Senate's repeal of the
death penalty?
Agree
25% => 9351 votes
Disagree
69% => 26012 votes
Don't know
5% => 1943 votes
You said:
That's incredible. Maybe this country isn't worth trying to
educate? Pretty scary that many people can be that clueless -
and about such a serious matter. And not even have a clue.
I said:
What's incredible is that you believe a poll which doesn't
support your opinion must either be rigged or composed
of those who are clueless. The Great Educator speaks,
and all should bow down. Good Grief, how is it possible
for you to be so opinionated, and arrogantly sure that
your own opinion should override the will of the majority??
You said:
For anyone who doesn't understand the statistical principles
involved, this means that these "results" say nothing about
what the voters of New Hampshire think of the recent law,
nor do the results say anything about what Americans or
even internet users as a whole think of the measure.
I said:
"The best known fact about American Attitudes toward capital
punishment is that support for the death penalty is at a near
record high... since 1982, in the range of 70% - 75%"
(From: The Death Penalty in America, Chapter 7, pp 90, Hugo
Bedau, Oxford Press, and extracted from The Journal of Social
Issues 50, No. 2, pp 19-52) A book biased in opposition to the
DP, but nevertheless, forced to admit this statistical finding.
You said:
In this case, anyone with a nodding acquaintance of statistics,
or even the skill to read a disclaimer, would know that the
"results" presented here have no relationship to the real
levels of public support for capital punishment. So the
question of the "will of the majority" simply never arises
in this context. What we see, instead, establishes pretty
clearly that it doesn't always make sense to take claims
to represent the "majority" at face value.
I say:
Apparently you feel statistics are valuable only when
they shore up your OPINION, which you continually claim
as an existing FACT OF NATURE.
I said:
One of the most highly touted studies, often paraded by
abolitionists is the Furman-Commuted Inmates study.
Even the most serious scholars admit that the results of
this extensive study, clearly began with the intent of
proving the failure of the DP. Nevertheless, no matter
how they twisted the data, or tried to skew the statistics,
the final analysis was reported as ambiguous in determining
a positive conclusion.
You said:
You've made the problem more complex than necessary.
I said:
I've made the problem more complex than necessary!!!!
Good grief... you claim the problem is NOT complex????
You would simplify the problem, by perhaps approaching
it as an auto traffic problem.
You said:
First, yes, a statement of fact. Stated to me, as a matter
of fact, by an eminent Canadian criminologist.
I say:
They had a song that had the proper words to reply
to this claim to being blessed with the insight of an EMINENT
CANADIAN CRIMINOLOGIST.
It ain't necessarily so.. It ain't necessarily so...
I said:
Under any conditions, other than the DP, recidivism
can never be unconditionally assumed as an
impossibility. Escape and the possibility of
future release of convicted murderers, will always
exist until the natural demise of the convicted
murderer.
You said:
For over a century, no offender convicted of
premeditated murder in Canada and subsequently paroled
has committed another homicide.
I said:
Loved that last sentence!! Not even an IMHO, or anything.
Just a statement of fact. Source please... assuming you can
find a source which can prove the statement "no offender....
has committed another homicide." I believe you might have
meant to say "never convicted of committing another homicide."
I say:
This misspeak by you has never been acknowledged, and pardon
me for being skeptical, but my OPINION is otherwise. And your
conclusion does not make provable sense, since it assumes a
fact otherwise not guaranteed to be certain. Which is why many
murderers do go free, wouldn't you say?
You said:
with three to six recidivist homicides
in the United States for every one in Canada
I said:
I find very little comfort with a 3 to 6 recidivist homicides
in the US for every one in Canada. And I find very little
sense in your statement that we have never executed
a murderer, that we could not have prevented from killing
again without the use of capital punishment. For example,
the average sentence for a homicide in all of the U.S. is
15 years, and the average time served is 7 years. Now I
make no claim that every one of those convicted of
homicide should have been executed. But quite clearly,
a few examples of those who were executed, should
show that if they had been released at some later date,
they would have murdered again. Gacy, Bundy, George,
Bolton, Snell, Six, come to mind as being unable to resist
further murders if released at some future date. Further,
most statistical examinations are deemed unable to
examine the effects of the DP for CAPITAL homicides,
to the exclusion of all other homicides. And only CAPITAL
homicides are likely to contribute to any deterrence of
future CAPITAL homicides.
I say:
Because a recidivist rate of 3-6 times that experienced
in Canada, has absolutely no bearing on the DP, it deserves
no further evaluation. It's the same as those who claim the
DP doesn't work because those states without the DP have
lower homicide rates. The consideration that possibly the DP
is in effect BECAUSE of those higher homicide rates, and
not a RESULT of the use of the DP, cannot be ignored.
In effect, IMHO (you see, only my OPINION), the thought
that the DP CAUSES higher homicides rates, sounds
ridiculous. The cause and effect principles at work here
are, higher rates of homicides are the cause of our use of the
DP and not the other way around.
If you just continue to cover old ground than that's what I
intend to do. Why should I waste my time in responding
otherwise to you, when you just make boldfaced CLAIMS.
"John G. Spragge" <spr...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:_pkY4.675$xJ2....@news.itd.umich.edu...
> A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:DmdY4.6615$TZ2.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> [ complaints about fact and opinion deleted ]
>
> Fact: You only execute about 0.1% of homicide
> perpetrators in the United States (roughly one in
> a thousand). Don't take my word for it; look up the
> US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice
> Statistics.
>
> Fact: According to statistics published by the
> same body, the bureau of justice statistics, you
> have a recidivist homicide rate between 3 and
> 5 percent.
>
david
>
>...just to correct a typo: the recidivist homicide
>rate should read between three and 6.6 percent. And
>in the interests of clarity, the 3 and the 6.6 come
>from different measures. The estimate of 6.6% for
>recidivist comes from a the last major DOJ study of
>parole, which analysed results from 1983, and tracked
>a large number of released inmates. It reported an
>arrest rate for homicide of 6.6% among those paroled
>after serving time for homicide convictions (within
>three years of release).
Whether it's a 3% recidivist rate or 6.6%, do you happen to know what
percentage of murders per year this constitutes?
John G. Spragge
[ more nonsense about facts and logic deleted ]
> To save myself some time let me just refresh readers
> memories as to past statement made by you and I:
I find two points only worth making out of this whole
farango:
1) You've misattributed to me a quote I didn't write.
2) Yes, I do consider the facts of an issue worth
learning; if I didn't consider the facts worth
learning, I wouldn't consider the issue worth
debating. If you disagree with me, kindly
take the trouble to find some facts of your
own and make a rational case from them.
I suggest you start at
John G. Spragge
news:slrn8j69oj...@tristan.local.dom...
> Whether it's a 3% recidivist rate or 6.6%, do you happen to know what
> percentage of murders per year this constitutes?
Based on http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf
US. federal and state authorities released 3258
offenders previously convicted of murder, of whom
they rearrested 6.6%, or about 215, within three
years for another murder.
That year, the US homicide rate stood at 8.6 per
100,000, for a total of about 19952 killings. The
murderers released that year thus accounted
(within three years of release) for the equivalent
of about 1% of the total number of homicides.
david
>I never said I'd provide the answers, I just ask the
>questions. <GG>
Well, why don't you? Hypotheticals are useful things in my book,
because they point out the strengths and weaknesses of an abstract
theory quite plainly. I've commented extensively below, but I'd
actually like to start out with a hypothetical of my own that
seemingly goes straight to your views:
In the future (and probably sooner than we think), we will
probably be able to foretell with some certainty a person's
propensity to violence, the actual likelihood that they are a
danger to society. Would it be appropriate for the government to
act on that knowledge (whether through execution or
incarceration) *before* an actual crime is committed?
>But as to question 1), and it's corollaries, in general:
>No, I believe it was relevant to the purpose I intend. In fact
>there are 3 possibilities (perhaps even more I haven't thought
>of, but that wasn't my intent to provide an all-inclusive list
>of possibilities). Given the ability to see all events in the
>future, the 3 are: 1) the person convicted has killed, 2) the
>person is innocent, 3) the ability to see is only as to FUTURE
>events, and when such events transpire, the fact that
>they were known prior to the murder having been
>previously committed or not committed, is erased from
>the memory of the one who can see into the future, thus
>they have no way of knowing the ACTUAL guilt or innocence
>of the convicted, after being convicted, and of course, to
>close the loophole David always finds, they lack the ability
>to eliminate the future killer before he/she is convicted, and
>this knowledge vanishes immediately upon the conviction,
>thus has NO impact on their final decision.
OK, but there's no loophole, because my answer is quite clear: on all
three, my previous answer stands. Because if I now *for certain* that
somebody is going to murder my family, I'm going to kill them first. I
don't care if they have committed 20 previous murders or if it's
Mother Teresa about to finally snap: it just doesn't matter. Isn't
the same true of you?
And it's that fact, the fact that the answer is the same on all three
of your hypotheticals, that you should consider very carefully.
Because if the only concern is future dangerousness, then isn't past
criminality totally irrelevant? And, since there is no doubt to most
people that the death penalty is an appropriate *punishment*, is not
the argument totally irrelevant? *Punishment* after all, refers
specifically to a past act.
>But, the closer actual perception that we use in our
>individual feelings as to the DP, is probably the 3rd
>example. We see the threat, but we have no way of
>knowing if the threat is real, other than the PERCEPTION,
>someone, somewhere (a Justice System, and a Jury of 12),
>has found the right man. Then in our eyes, we do not just
>perceive the threat, but we KNOW it is real.
How does finding the right man equate to knowing the threat is real?
Now don't focus on the word "knowing" there, focus on the word
"threat".
Let me put that another way, and this is a point I wish you'd address
if you reply to this post.
You are mostly, if not entirely, concerned with the future threat to
society of convicted murderers, right? And presumably you feel that
it is this future threat that is the overriding factor to be
considered when deciding which murderers should be executed and which
should not (assuming, of course, that we don't execute all of them)?
And it is this aspect of the question, the aspect that concerns the
future dangerousness of convicted murderers, that supports your
conviction that the DP is a morally appropriate option.
I think I'm representing your views correctly above, perhaps not
completely but accurately.
But the catch is that the death penalty in America is NOT run by those
rules. In most states, future dangerousness is *not* the leading
factor when considering execution. That's not an opinion, that's
simply a fact of law. Future dangerousness is simply not a necessary
factor to consider when choosing to execute.
So, while I accept that you feel that capital punishment *can* be
moral, do you feel that it is moral as currently practiced in the
United States?
Certainly, there can be no denying that we execute people who aren't
really considered future dangers (infanticidal mothers for example).
In fact, we have executed people where the jury has specifically found
that they are not a future threat to anybody. So how do you feel
about that? Support for capital punishment in the abstract, or
feeling that it is sometimes a moral choice, does not necessarily
equate to feeling that it is *always* a morally correct choice.
>And that is the question
>of "Vengeance," for past events. You know I personally
>have the view that vengeance has no purpose in morally
>examining the DP, but other's may view differently. I have
>no qualms over their views. I simply believe it is mistaken,
>IMHO, and has no moral purpose when evaluating the
>SOCIAL implication of the use of the DP to the entire
>body of society.
So, how do you feel when those other people's views are controlling
the choice of who to execute? Is it possible to oppose a society's
actual practice of capital punishment because it is based on non-moral
grounds, even though one may feel that it is appropriate in certain
circumstances?
>You may view it as a "personal" war... but if
>you do, then you have to accept the fact that many
>members of our society, view the DP as a "War," on
>violence, regardless of whether this view holds
>water or doesn't,
Far from ignoring that facet of the problem, I actually commented
extensively on the fact that certain people hold those views.
>Everyone, except the most hard-fast DOGMATIC
>opponent or defender of the DP, MUST agree that at
>some point the DP is totally immoral, and at some
>larger value, whatever that value might be in their own
>PERCEPTION, MUST become moral. The number
>of innocents we PERCEIVE to be on the train,
>determines our philosophical bent regarding the DP, and
>our subconscious mathematical quantification of what
>values represent immorality changing to morality. I'm
>not sure of this point, but I believe you yourself stated
>somewhere in another thread that if 7 (?), could be
>saved by executing 1, you would be for the DP, and
>regardless, your viewpoint certainly must fall on the curve.
>I didn't mean to go into it like this, but you mentioned
>mathematically not quantifiable, and it is.
Actually, you could have saved yourself the trouble; I didn't say it
wasn't "quantifiable", certainly it is. The exact amount that the DP
in America has increased or decreased the number of murders of
innocents certainly exists in a platonic sense. I said that, in
reality, the number wasn't knowable to a mathematical certainty;
there's too many variables. We can only guess at what that actual
number is, although we can look at studies and statistics to help us
make an educated guess.
>What values we
>attach to whatever factors we personally presume affects
>our PERCEPTION of where the DP lies on the curve... is
>once again, in "the eye of the beholder," but is fully
>quantifiable to that observer if they wish to examine
>their own conscious and values.
Well, though our *perception* may be quantifiable in a sense, the
truth is that there is an actual quantity that is accurate. Either we
make a stab in the dark at the number, or we feel that certain modern
techniques can help us achieve a better estimate of that quantity.
A Planet Visitor
impression of what these facts, and even stupid
statistics, are ASSUMED to represent. What I
do NOT do is make absurd STATEMENTS,
supposedly deciding WHAT THE INFORMATION
HAS TO represent, except when I show something
of a sarcastic example of the absurdity of judging
statistics as to what fact they SUPPOSEDLY
represent. In point of fact I did post long term
trends of Homicides statistics from the URL that
you suggest, as a sarcastic portrayal of how
each of us can see statistics in a different light.
These statistics were immediately jumped upon,
as having no validity, for a number of reasons, by
those dedicated to the anti-DP cause. This only
pointed out in my own mind, that statistics are
what each and every one of us perceive those
statistics show. Do extreme levels of homicides
result from our use of the DP, or does the DP
result from extreme levels of homicide? These
are the kinds of questions some of the posters
to this newsgroup would presume to know the
answer to. That's why Nature has blessed
us with a brain somewhat more advanced then
the dumb animals on this planet. We continually
ask the question in our own mind --- "Why?" No
other animal in creation asks this question. For
you to both ask and answer your posts in the
same breath, leaves me to wonder exactly what
your MOTIVES are to do so. Like one would
train a dumb animal, you would expect us to
sit when you say "sit!" and bark when you say
"bark!" I suspect that your posts really represent
an attempt to make a "tangential" attack (as one
of our more learned poster's has mentioned),
of a PERSONAL nature, against both the use
of the DP, and U.S. society in general. Perhaps
if you were to insert the FACT that your statements
represent OPINIONS, even opinions of those
"Learned and Eminent Canadian Criminologists,"
prior to having to be reminded to do so, your
posts might have MORE rather than LESS
substance. They might then cause others to
pause and reflect on "WHY," rather than seeing
them as just another opinionated view, as I do.
In clarification of my last post to you:
You said:
That's incredible. Maybe this country isn't worth trying to
educate? Pretty scary that many people can be that clueless -
and about such a serious matter. And not even have a clue.
Remark: You are correct. After searching back through
archives I found I had made a mistake, and this comment
cannot be attributed to you. I hate it when that happens,
on every occasion, but more especially when it happens to me,
because I demand that others verify what they say unless they
presume to present an OPINION, simply because I deplore
statements presented as FACT which are either erroneous or
represent only an opinion. I demand no less from myself,
and I DO APOLOGIZE FOR MY ERROR.
You said:
For anyone who doesn't understand the statistical principles
involved, this means that these "results" say nothing about
what the voters of New Hampshire think of the recent law,
nor do the results say anything about what Americans or
even internet users as a whole think of the measure.
Ref: "John G. Spragge" <spr...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:LqVV4.173$jB2....@news.itd.umich.edu...
You said:
In this case, anyone with a nodding acquaintance of statistics,
or even the skill to read a disclaimer, would know that the
"results" presented here have no relationship to the real
levels of public support for capital punishment. So the
question of the "will of the majority" simply never arises
in this context. What we see, instead, establishes pretty
clearly that it doesn't always make sense to take claims
to represent the "majority" at face value.
Ref: "John G. Spragge" <spr...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:LqVV4.173$jB2....@news.itd.umich.edu...
You said:
You've made the problem more complex than necessary.
Ref: "John G. Spragge" <spr...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:8fitt1$u2j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
You said:
First, yes, a statement of fact. Stated to me, as a matter
of fact, by an eminent Canadian criminologist.
Ref: "John G. Spragge" <spr...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:8fitt1$u2j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
You said:
For over a century, no offender convicted of
premeditated murder in Canada and subsequently paroled
has committed another homicide.
Ref: John G. Spragge" <spr...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:8fgdq0$7v3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
You said:
with three to six recidivist homicides
in the United States for every one in Canada
Ref: John G. Spragge" <spr...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:8fgdq0$7v3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
End of my response.
"John G. Spragge" <spr...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:erHY4.755$xJ2....@news.itd.umich.edu...
> A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:llAY4.10261$VO2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> [ more nonsense about facts and logic deleted ]
>
> > To save myself some time let me just refresh readers
> > memories as to past statement made by you and I:
>
> I find two points only worth making out of this whole
> farango:
>
> 1) You've misattributed to me a quote I didn't write.
>
> 2) Yes, I do consider the facts of an issue worth
> learning; if I didn't consider the facts worth
> learning, I wouldn't consider the issue worth
> debating. If you disagree with me, kindly
> take the trouble to find some facts of your
> own and make a rational case from them.
>
> I suggest you start at
>
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
>
A Planet Visitor
that I presented them hopefully to get people to THINK about
their own answers. If you return to the original concept of
the question, it's obvious that I wanted to bait Desi to force
him to admit that there is a point at which all opposition to
the DP must vanish in every person's mind. This was
the most simplistic situation I could think of.
1. The person was guilty
2. The person had been convicted
3. The person would personally commit murder against the one
who had final sentence authority (In essence, an individual
representing the society)
You seemed to be the only one really interested in the
implication (certainly not Desi) and you pointed out rightly
that guilt or innocence would have no bearing on your decision,
and when I closed that loophole only option 3 remained
relevant.
You therefore have stated that the only consideration in your
mind, in the final analysis, is and has nothing to do with the DP,
and nothing to do with Guilt or Innocence. Regardless of what
you think about loopholes, you closed the last loophole
yourself, confirming the only reasonable decision, is one of
protection of your own self, and those who you hold dear.
This instinct assumes an importance far beyond that which is
moral or immoral. If you perceive (in this case "know"), that
your family is threatened directly, you put aside ANY view of
what constitutes not only morality, but right from wrong, in the
legal aspects. In every case, as you correctly point out... It
makes no difference to you whether the person is innocent,
guilty, or you don't know. Your answer is always "put them
to death." It's just self- defense, and self-preservation in
everyone's mind. And it's a judgment you make in your mind
of an event that HAS NOT YET HAPPENED. Thus you have
DETERRED a future event, because you and only you
perceive (know) that this threat will happen. You know it will,
but you are the only one who knows it will. You have prejudged
and sentenced a person to death because of a threat to only
you and your family. You don't perceive a threat to anyone else.
This I believe addresses the first part above of your poser, if the
Government knows of the propensity beforehand. If they did
do execute or incarcerate without prior offense, it would be the
same as we observe here... neither moral, nor logically... only an
attempt at self-defense by a whole society, rather than a
direct personal threat... thus totally immoral in my mind. And
I can't image a civilization advanced to such a level would
consider "Punishment beforehand, as a preventive measure."
Anyway, This form of a question can be posed with many
different parameters and many different results, but if
self-preservation is involved, all other considerations
disintegrate. For example to consider questions which do
not lead to brick walls, usually more than one person has
to be considered which presents more complex decisions.
What if you are to decide on 2, with no knowledge of
guilt or innocence, but you KNOW 1 of them, will in the
future escape to kill again if not executed, but you do NOT
know who? What if you know that 1 will escape and TRY
to kill you and your family, but it is not certain they will
succeed, and you can thus rearrange your life to prevent this
occurrence as much as possible. These type of questions
now hinge more on moral examinations of what we would
each trade off to achieve a greater perceived good (execution
of an innocent to prevent a murder). And what if you are
presented (as is often assumed in an individual's mind, in the
present use of the DP), with the knowledge that 1 of 4 that
you have final DP decision on, if not executed, will at some
point reenter society and kill 1 time again, while you know
1 of the 4 is innocent, but you do not know which one.
Do you execute the innocent to save the other innocent? And
further, what if you had to execute or L wop 4 persons,
in any proportion, with the foreknowledge that eventually AT
LEAST 1 would return to society, perhaps more, and at least
1 innocent in society will subsequently be murdered as a
result of the return, but other facts are not knowable. Past
criminality is important as the tool to identify the lives which
are being judged by YOU. But YOU do not determine past
criminality... you only know that they have been convicted.
As I've said before... and whoever wants to disagree with
me (in addition to you), may do so. I set you up as the
judge of the DP (the entire DP), the Justice System has used
the past criminality to determine WHO you will judge. Other
than the percentages, or any percentages you wish to insert,
past criminality is not within your jurisdiction. You know what
I said -- 1 of 4 is innocent for example. But past criminality
does not enter into your decision. You don't care, that
decision has been made for you. And this is the way I (me,
myself and I) view the DP. Further examination of the DP
as "punishment," I won't address, because I (me,
just me) do not see the DP as punishment (other crimes,
yes). The DP is just too permanent for me to view as punishment.
If others who support the DP do, I can do nothing about that.
Like other aspects of those who support or attack our use
of the DP, what they view as appropriate to reaching their
perception is up to them. I can only try to persuade others
to examine "WHY," and try to explain why I, see things the
way I do. Each opinion has little value... it's the synergy of
the system which determines the flow.
In reference to my original question, where you asked what
my answer would be. As you, and I assume everyone's
answer, other than one bent on self-destruction of self and
family would be... I would vote DP, DP, DP.
> >But, the closer actual perception that we use in our
> >individual feelings as to the DP, is probably the 3rd
> >example. We see the threat, but we have no way of
> >knowing if the threat is real, other than the PERCEPTION,
> >someone, somewhere (a Justice System, and a Jury of 12),
> >has found the right man. Then in our eyes, we do not just
> >perceive the threat, but we KNOW it is real.
>
> How does finding the right man equate to knowing the threat is real?
> Now don't focus on the word "knowing" there, focus on the word
> "threat".
Recidivism. Not only actual identification, but perceived views.
Do we really know how many murderer's who in our PERCEPTION
should have been executed (I mean we passed the law, right... If
the Justice System could have, but did not, that is NOT a fault of
the DP, in my view), but returned to society and murdered again.
Recidivist's imply capture and conviction... what about those never
caught. Everyone always complains about the solution rate of our
Justice System and it IS abominable, but does that mean the DP
is wrong? You talked about how society and science has advanced
to the point that perhaps someday, all capital offenses will be
solved. What then... do we execute all, do we L wop all, do we
spank them all? In another post today, from Peter Morris he came
up with what I believe is a contradiction in terms. If we support
the DP, doesn't that mean we consider L wop to be more immoral,
if we ourselves, put in that situation, would rather have the DP over
L wop? If we ourselves would prefer the DP over L wop, than it
follows that we must view the DP at more moral, and L wop as
less moral. Since torture is not the purpose of capital punishment
or L wop.
>
> Let me put that another way, and this is a point I wish you'd address
> if you reply to this post.
>
> You are mostly, if not entirely, concerned with the future threat to
> society of convicted murderers, right? And presumably you feel that
> it is this future threat that is the overriding factor to be
> considered when deciding which murderers should be executed and which
> should not (assuming, of course, that we don't execute all of them)?
>
> And it is this aspect of the question, the aspect that concerns the
> future dangerousness of convicted murderers, that supports your
> conviction that the DP is a morally appropriate option.
>
> I think I'm representing your views correctly above, perhaps not
> completely but accurately.
>
> But the catch is that the death penalty in America is NOT run by those
> rules. In most states, future dangerousness is *not* the leading
> factor when considering execution. That's not an opinion, that's
> simply a fact of law. Future dangerousness is simply not a necessary
> factor to consider when choosing to execute.
>
> So, while I accept that you feel that capital punishment *can* be
> moral, do you feel that it is moral as currently practiced in the
> United States?
>
Yes, perhaps by a razor thin margin. And every improvement we
make in the Justice System (DNA, physical evidence, etc), brings
me closer rather than further away. And in addition that margin has
actually grown TODAY. The illogical answer presented by Peter
Morris, sort of crystallized a thought in my mind. What would I
want if faced with the DP or L wop? I would choose the DP.
Thus to me L wop not only represents an UNWORKABLE solution,
which I always felt, it has now more solidified in my mind, that I
view it as even more immoral than the DP. I think many
who view L wop as an answer, in the back of their minds, would
rather have the DP themselves, and also think that someday,
perhaps someday, those sentenced to L wop will be able to
return to society, which is a contradiction in terms, since L wop
means "Life without Parole."
> Certainly, there can be no denying that we execute people who aren't
> really considered future dangers (infanticidal mothers for example).
> In fact, we have executed people where the jury has specifically found
> that they are not a future threat to anybody. So how do you feel
> about that? Support for capital punishment in the abstract, or
> feeling that it is sometimes a moral choice, does not necessarily
> equate to feeling that it is *always* a morally correct choice.
I've said it before, others may, but I do not view the DP in
abstract terms. Every person executed is a responsibility
of the society, whether guilty or innocent. I view it as
marginally effective... and have hopes of improving that
margin as a result of improvements in our Justice System.
And now I'm beginning to believe it is morally more acceptable
than L wop. Face it, those who favor L wop, really do so because
they assume, or hope, that at some time in the future, some new
evidence will develop which will prove those with L wop are
fully capable of returning to society.
>
> >And that is the question
> >of "Vengeance," for past events. You know I personally
> >have the view that vengeance has no purpose in morally
> >examining the DP, but other's may view differently. I have
> >no qualms over their views. I simply believe it is mistaken,
> >IMHO, and has no moral purpose when evaluating the
> >SOCIAL implication of the use of the DP to the entire
> >body of society.
>
> So, how do you feel when those other people's views are controlling
> the choice of who to execute? Is it possible to oppose a society's
> actual practice of capital punishment because it is based on non-moral
> grounds, even though one may feel that it is appropriate in certain
> circumstances?
I've said, my voice and your voice represent only the smallest
sliver of our social conscious. I know you do your part to direct
that conscious as you believe it should be. I just do my small
part, and like the man says... Change what you can change, and
accept what you cannot.
>
> >You may view it as a "personal" war... but if
> >you do, then you have to accept the fact that many
> >members of our society, view the DP as a "War," on
> >violence, regardless of whether this view holds
> >water or doesn't,
>
> Far from ignoring that facet of the problem, I actually commented
> extensively on the fact that certain people hold those views.
Noted. And I agree. I do think that almost all view the
DP as a war against violence, if they support the DP.
>
> >Everyone, except the most hard-fast DOGMATIC
> >opponent or defender of the DP, MUST agree that at
> >some point the DP is totally immoral, and at some
> >larger value, whatever that value might be in their own
> >PERCEPTION, MUST become moral. The number
> >of innocents we PERCEIVE to be on the train,
> >determines our philosophical bent regarding the DP, and
> >our subconscious mathematical quantification of what
> >values represent immorality changing to morality. I'm
> >not sure of this point, but I believe you yourself stated
> >somewhere in another thread that if 7 (?), could be
> >saved by executing 1, you would be for the DP, and
> >regardless, your viewpoint certainly must fall on the curve.
> >I didn't mean to go into it like this, but you mentioned
> >mathematically not quantifiable, and it is.
>
> Actually, you could have saved yourself the trouble; I didn't say it
> wasn't "quantifiable", certainly it is. The exact amount that the DP
> in America has increased or decreased the number of murders of
> innocents certainly exists in a platonic sense. I said that, in
> reality, the number wasn't knowable to a mathematical certainty;
> there's too many variables. We can only guess at what that actual
> number is, although we can look at studies and statistics to help us
> make an educated guess.
OK, I was sure that was what you meant anyway. I just wanted
to throw in that neat little bit of math. And you did say "with any
kind of mathematical certainty," which I used as an excuse.
>
> >What values we
> >attach to whatever factors we personally presume affects
> >our PERCEPTION of where the DP lies on the curve... is
> >once again, in "the eye of the beholder," but is fully
> >quantifiable to that observer if they wish to examine
> >their own conscious and values.
>
> Well, though our *perception* may be quantifiable in a sense, the
> truth is that there is an actual quantity that is accurate. Either we
> make a stab in the dark at the number, or we feel that certain modern
> techniques can help us achieve a better estimate of that quantity.
But can one do anything but "make a stab in the dark," as to what the
actual values are? We can examine the dynamics which drive the
mathematical equation, assuming that one even perceives what
one is examining. Anything that gives us a better feel for the values
we assign as individuals is NOT counterproductive... I've never said
that... I've only said that each must examine them using their own
criteria... let no man judge for you!!! You and others present quite
convincing arguments otherwise, and are not to be ignored, but
rather examined, probably more than what I say, because I represent
the layman view. Nevertheless, the quantification of this value lies
within each of us. We can only hope, regardless of whether we
like or hate the DP as a social practice, that people use the correct
tools to examine these dynamics, but even these tools are subject
to suspicion. Everything, you and I and everyone, every word we
say needs to be examined with suspicion, when making that "stab
in the dark."
Leaving in the morning... Won't be back or in touch until late next
week.
>
St.George
> > >> the lesser of two evils.
>
>
> > Indeed, such proclamations as made by Desmond do no
> > service to the anti-dp cause. I can't help but wonder if that
> > is his intent.
>
> I fail to see how my expressing a personal opinion (which in this
> case, and coincidentally, is an undeniable Truth) can do no service
> to the 'anti-dp [sic] cause'.
Stating your opinion is fine, Desmond.
However, your '[sic]' is pedantic and your claim of "undeniable Truth [sic]"
is ridiculous, and an example of the most infuriating kind of liberal
hypocrisy.
Clearly, in a literal sense, your 'truth' is, almost by definition, NOT
undeniable. Furthermore, your dogmatic assertion of what is merely a
position of personal morality is as comtemptible as those who claim, for
instance, that homosexuals will be deservedly be condemned to damnation for
all eternity.
If you wish to rebut me by justifying your conclusion in terms of pure logic
(i.e. without relying on subjective opinion as any part of your case) then I
look forward to reading it.
Until then, you are succeeding only in making the abolitionist side look
stupid.
St.George
<snip>
> Under any conditions, other than the DP, recidivism
> can never be unconditionally assumed as an
> impossibility. Escape and the possibility of
> future release of convicted murderers, will always
> exist until the natural demise of the convicted
> murderer.
Just to jump in here to make a quick point, the above argument has precisely
zero merit as a retentionist point.
One may use precisely the same logic to argue for the execution of all
rapists, all burglars, or even all parking offenders - it is the only way to
*ensure* that they do not offend again.
In fact, why wait for the damage to be done? Murders are committed
disproportionately by young men. Let us, therefore, pre-emptively strike by
immediately executing all young men!
After all, it's the ONLY way to ENSURE that they do not commit murder in the
future.....
St.George
> On Sat, 27 May 2000 20:03:23 GMT, that_frog_...@my-deja.com
>
> > >No. The murder of an innocent by a wrongly released murderer is
> > >the lesser of two evils.
>
>
> Unlike many on the retentionist side of this sad debate, by the
> time my fingers hit my keyboard, I have already thought long and
> hard about the question of capital punishment.
>
> I can find no rational, intelligent, logical argument that supports
> intelligent person who supports the death penalty
While I agree that Desmond's original assertion is over-zealous at best, his
subsequent broad point is powerful - there are very good reasons to believe
that the likelihood of supporting the death penalty has an excellent inverse
correlation with intelligence.
Retentionists may like to consider why this is so....
[Interestingly, Desmond, a similar inverse correlation is observed regarding
intelligence and the likelihood of voting for the Labour Party!]
St.George
A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:CmeY4.6790$TZ2.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Although I never respond to any of your posts with anything
> other than ridicule because I believe that is all they deserve,
> your latest blathering interested me, as to just proving what
> your shallow values really represent. Allow me to present
> two arguments that I'd really like to see you address to this
> newsgroup if you seriously feel ALL capital punishment is
> wrong. Of course, not only you but everyone in this
> newsgroup who reads this thread... judged to be a miniscule
> number... may offer their view also.
>
> 1) Since these represent theoretical arguments let us assume
> in this first case, that you are provided with certain information,
> namely the ability to see events which will transpire if you make
> certain personal choices such as "Use the DP," or "Don't use the
> DP." Assume a murderer has killed one person, is caught,
> prosecuted and condemned to death. You have the ability to
> see into the future, and you KNOW that if this person is not
> executed, he will at some point in the future, either escape from
> prison, or be released on parole. You further know that he will,
> if released, murder you and your family. You are now given the
> final word in society's use of the DP. Would you agree or disagree
> that the DP is appropriate?
IMHO, your wording is faulty here - the d.p. would NOT be appropriate, as to
punish someone pre-emptively goes against natural justice.
However, I don't believe you were attempting to set a semantic trap, so I
would confirm that as both a utilitarian and a family man I would throw the
switch myself if necessary...
> 2) Given that you are a locomotive engineer on a train, you are
> solely in control of the train, and the switches on the tracks the train
> will travel on. You and no other. You have free will. On the train
> you are transporting 10,000 political prisoners to an extermination
> camp (forget the analogies between past true situational events).
> You are also secretly involved in a clandestine operation opposed to
> the government. You have worked with operatives in that clandestine
> operation, and ahead is a switch which in one direction, will take the
> train illegally across another border to a safe haven, and in the other
> direction will go to the camp. Your fellow operatives are waiting on
> the other side of the border. As you approach the switch, which is
> presently set to continue to the camp, you start to turn the switch,
> when you see a group of soldiers guarding the tracks between the
> switch and the border. These soldiers will not or cannot remove
> themselves from the path of the train if you throw the switch. Do you
> throw the switch, understanding you will kill the soldiers and save
> the prisoners, or do you not throw the switch, because to do so
> means you are the instrument of the soldier deaths, and the prisoners
> are only your responsibility to deliver to the camp, and further than
> that
> you have no involvement or responsibility for their subsequent death.
> Do you throw the switch?
Yes - fewer innocents die if I do.
> If yes... Would you change directions if it were a truck you were
> driving
> with 50 prisoners in the back, and 10 soldiers in the path of the detour
> road to the safe border, who would certainly die? Yes or No?
Yes - for the same reason - although it may be different if I am to be
executed for my actions.
Whereas I cannot claim that my life is worth the 9,900-odd extra innocent
deaths it would take to answer 'No' to the previous question, I am a selfish
bastard so forty might not be so clear-cut.
Furthermore, I expect I could rationally claim that 'keeping my powder dry'
here would likely allow me the chance to save a greater number in the
future.
> If yes... Would you change directions if it were a van you were driving
> with 10 prisoners, who secretly were also part of your opposition
> group, and there were 10 soldiers in the path of the detour road, and
> they would certainly die? Yes or No?
No. The utilitarian justification has now vanished.
<snip moot questions>
> Let me observe this, however, as Churchill once is rumored to have
> remarked:
> Churchill was at a Dinner and a Duchess assigned to the seat next
> to him began a conversation with him, and the conversation turned
> to the promiscuity of that current generation and the easy view they
> took of sex. As she expounded on this subject, Churchill asked her,
> theoretically, if she would have sex with him for a million dollars, and
> she observed that perhaps she might for that amount. He then
> queried her as to whether she would have sex with him for $10,
> and she responded indignantly, "Of course not... what do you think
> I am, a Prostitute?" Whereupon he replied, "We've already established
> that, we're only working on the price now." I'm just trying to figure
> out with you what your price is that you attach to the use of the DP.
My favourite Churchill story concerns the time when he arrived at the House
of Commons for Prime Minister's Questions after a rather-too-liquid lunch.
Rising for her question, a rather stout lady on the opposition benches made
clear her disgust at Churchill's somewhat advanced state of inebriation.
Turning to his interlocutor, the great man intoned:
"Madam, I may be drunk; but you are ugly - and in the morning I shall
be sober!"
St.George
> On 28 May 2000 21:15:19 GMT, Snag <sn...@aol.comcom> wrote:
>
> > >Desi is always "amusing", but never "interesting".
>
> > Ya got me there!
>
> by a combination of his ISP cracking down on him, his wife getting
> fed up with federal agents calling at the door each time that he
> tries (and fails ... ROTFLMAO !!!) to hack into a 'toy' UNIX server,
> and the NSA letting him know in no uncertain terms that if he doesn't
> stop harassing innocent people on the Internet, he'll lose his job,
> there is another contender for the 'This Newsgroup Exists to Fuel My
> Obsession with Desi [sic]' award ...
>
> Or was that sentence too long for 'ya'(sic) ?
Did you ever answer the question(s), Desmond?
I can't seem to find it, but it's not like you to dodge an issue...
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > It would appear that, with Drewl's more hysterical obsession tamed
> > by a combination of his ISP cracking down on him, his wife getting
> > fed up with federal agents calling at the door each time that he
> > tries (and fails ... ROTFLMAO !!!) to hack into a 'toy' UNIX server,
> > and the NSA letting him know in no uncertain terms that if he doesn't
> > stop harassing innocent people on the Internet, he'll lose his job,
> > there is another contender for the 'This Newsgroup Exists to Fuel My
> > Obsession with Desi [sic]' award ...
> >
> > Or was that sentence too long for 'ya'(sic) ?
> Did you ever answer the question(s), Desmond?
>
> I can't seem to find it, but it's not like you to dodge an issue...
I can only assume that you're referring to a different thread, Mark,
because when I search for every occurence of 'Re: The GOP Death Penalty
Mafia' in my responses, I find the following :
Sat 27 May 13:45:34 2000
On this day, I responded to David, who had asked if there were are
wealthy murderers on death row.
Later that same day, Larry Smith asked if we could 'bridge two ideologies.
I responded in the negative.
The following day, Sun 28 May 14:42:47 2000, Avital made the rather silly
claim that the loss of a loved one to murder would change one's mind. I
responded to him. I also responded to 'Bad Habit' who stated that my
contention (shared by scholars for centuries) that it is better to free
ten guilty men, and to wrongly punish one innocent man, would somehow
bring the abolitionist movement into disrepute.
That brings us to the post to which you responded. Perhaps you'd like to
remind me of the 'issue' that you suspect me of 'dodging' (sorry, but
'Desi! Desi! Look at me, Desi!', which is the thrust of at least 75%
of the retentionists' 'arguments', doesn't count), or the question that
you believe I failed to answer.
A Planet Visitor
upon which a huge meat-fly has settled, making me
queasy and sick when I look at it.
You have made the illogical leap that many of your
brethren anti-DP supporters make. First, you would
wrap all rapists, burglars and parking violators in the
same cloak as convicted murderers. Then in the
ultimate absurdity, you would suggest we execute
ALL young men (not to mention a sexist approach to
the broad subject of the DP), since they represent a
disproportionate number of murderers, as following the
same logical thread. Need I point out the logic of the
two following statements, insofar as our use of the DP
is concerned: "All murderers are human," but "All
humans are not murderers." I find your use of a
distorted approach to logic to be deeply simplistic,
not to mention broadly stupid. I leave to the general
reader to determine exactly how deep and how broad
that simplicity and stupidity runs. Perhaps we should
inquire as to the logic of the counterexample to your
post -- We should release ALL criminals, and never
prosecute another, because we cannot prevent
recidivism! The form you offer is generally employed
when one does not wish to address the content, but is
rather content to think that they have reduced the problem
to a simple "kill them all, and let God sort them out."
Which can certainly be proved false logically, but which
is what you exclaim would be the same as my assertion
that ONLY the DP insures no possibility of recidivism of
one CONVICTED and SENTENCED to the DP. Perhaps
you need a flow chart to follow the logic, but please try
harder.
to keep pace. "St.George" <st_george99@***hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8hnm6g$rcs$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>
> A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:llAY4.10261$VO2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > Under any conditions, other than the DP, recidivism
> > can never be unconditionally assumed as an
> > impossibility. Escape and the possibility of
> > future release of convicted murderers, will always
> > exist until the natural demise of the convicted
> > murderer.
>
>
>
10wh...@my-deja.com
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> In its present form, your post reminds me of a steak
> upon which a huge meat-fly has settled, making me
> queasy and sick when I look at it.
Well, this statement certainly would encourage courtesy and addressing
the issues rather than more personal invective! Rather than engage in
further ad homina, I'd like to try to focus on an issue. Thus, I've
snipped much of the commentary - without so indicating.
> First, you would
> wrap all rapists, burglars and parking violators in the
> same cloak as convicted murderers.
Not exactly. The suggestion was made, I believe, to illustrate that
the same risk exists for non-murderers as you say below, "recidivism
can never be unconditionally assumed as an impossibility. Escape and
the possibility of future release". Since the bulk of murderers are
not recidivist murderers, reducing the population of murderers
necessarily involves reducing the population of potential murderers.
Then in the
> ultimate absurdity, you would suggest we execute
> ALL young men
I think it's safe to believe that was intended as satire through
absurdity rather than a serious proposal.
(not to mention a sexist approach to
> the broad subject of the DP)
The sexism of the dp is well established by a simple review of the
numbers. Women are underrepresented on death row in numbers than can
only be charitably described as miniscule.
ONLY the DP insures no possibility of recidivism of
> one CONVICTED and SENTENCED to the DP.
The implicit point has to do with being able to identify in advance,
those who will commit murder. One of the often repeated (and mostly
irrelevant to murder recidivism) comments is that parolees account for
thousands of murders. Nearly all of those are *not* convicted
murderers so we have a long way to go before we actually understand,
let alone gain control, who will commit murder. The record of
murderers released who re-offend is actually pretty good when compared
with other offenders' background.
A Planet Visitor
<10wh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8hoq12$cmj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8UN%4.29122$2X2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> > In its present form, your post reminds me of a steak
> > upon which a huge meat-fly has settled, making me
> > queasy and sick when I look at it.
>
> Well, this statement certainly would encourage courtesy and addressing
> the issues rather than more personal invective! Rather than engage in
> further ad homina, I'd like to try to focus on an issue. Thus, I've
> snipped much of the commentary - without so indicating.
I never expect nor do I extend courtesy, to those who would attempt
to read into my comments, their own opinion. I smelled a stink and
I reported it as such. If you don't like it, well, you know what...
>
> > First, you would
> > wrap all rapists, burglars and parking violators in the
> > same cloak as convicted murderers.
>
> Not exactly. The suggestion was made, I believe, to illustrate that
> the same risk exists for non-murderers as you say below, "recidivism
> can never be unconditionally assumed as an impossibility. Escape and
> the possibility of future release". Since the bulk of murderers are
> not recidivist murderers, reducing the population of murderers
> necessarily involves reducing the population of potential murderers.
This was the complete statement I made:
"Under any conditions, other than the DP, recidivism can never be
unconditionally assumed as an impossibility. Escape and the
possibility of future release of convicted murderers, will always
exist until the natural demise of the convicted murderer."
The response was:
One may use precisely the same logic to argue for the execution of all
rapists, all burglars, or even all parking offenders - it is the only
way to
*ensure* that they do not offend again.
Now tell me again how my statement in any way, by any
extension of logic can be presumed to imply that using precisely
the same logic one may argue for the EXECUTION OF ALL RAPISTS,
ALL BURGLARS, OR EVEN PARKING OFFENDERS. My statement
was clear. The response was half-assed. My statement further
made no statement of fact concerning "bulk of murderers,"
"reducing the population of murderers," or "reducing the
population of potential murderers." Explain to me how recidivism
can be UNCONDITIONALLY ASSUMED AS AN IMPOSSIBILITY,"
if a convicted murderer is still alive. I need that crystal ball for my
next stock purchase.
>
> Then in the
> > ultimate absurdity, you would suggest we execute
> > ALL young men
>
> I think it's safe to believe that was intended as satire through
> absurdity rather than a serious proposal.
You may think so, but the tenor of the post was more
confrontational than satiric. And if it was intended as satire,
the poster better return to the Joe Miller Joke Book. And I
hardly see the satire in a suggestion to execute all young men.
>
> (not to mention a sexist approach to
> > the broad subject of the DP)
>
> The sexism of the dp is well established by a simple review of the
> numbers. Women are underrepresented on death row in numbers than can
> only be charitably described as miniscule.
Nevertheless, the suggestion was that we should execute
all young men because they are OVERREPRESENTED in
our use of the DP. What next... perhaps the old racial card
can now be disclosed???
>
> ONLY the DP insures no possibility of recidivism of
> > one CONVICTED and SENTENCED to the DP.
>
> The implicit point has to do with being able to identify in advance,
> those who will commit murder. One of the often repeated (and mostly
> irrelevant to murder recidivism) comments is that parolees account for
> thousands of murders. Nearly all of those are *not* convicted
> murderers so we have a long way to go before we actually understand,
> let alone gain control, who will commit murder. The record of
> murderers released who re-offend is actually pretty good when compared
> with other offenders' background.
"The implicit point has to do with being able to identify in advance,
those who will commit murder." Once again I need that crystal ball.
But, get out of here -- a 3% to 6% recidivist rate is GOOD. Take a
look at some of the past posts verifying this observation. If applied
to
the general population that would mean 3% to 6% of all citizens
commit murder!!! You figure it out, because I did in a previous post.
10wh...@my-deja.com
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> <10wh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8hoq12$cmj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <8UN%4.29122
$2X2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
[Churlishness snipped]
> > > First, you would
> > > wrap all rapists, burglars and parking violators in the
> > > same cloak as convicted murderers.
> >
> > Not exactly. The suggestion was made, I believe, to illustrate that
> > the same risk exists for non-murderers as you say below, "recidivism
> > can never be unconditionally assumed as an impossibility. Escape and
> > the possibility of future release". Since the bulk of murderers are
> > not recidivist murderers, reducing the population of murderers
> > necessarily involves reducing the population of potential murderers.
>
> This was the complete statement I made:
>
> "Under any conditions, other than the DP, recidivism can never be
> unconditionally assumed as an impossibility. Escape and the
> possibility of future release of convicted murderers, will always
> exist until the natural demise of the convicted murderer."
>
> The response was:
>
> One may use precisely the same logic to argue for the execution of all
> rapists, all burglars, or even all parking offenders - it is the only
> way to
> *ensure* that they do not offend again.
>
> Now tell me again how my statement in any way, by any
> extension of logic can be presumed to imply that using precisely
> the same logic one may argue for the EXECUTION OF ALL RAPISTS,
> ALL BURGLARS, OR EVEN PARKING OFFENDERS.
Rape, burglary and parking offenses are more common than murder. In
some jurisdictions, such offenses can result in the dp. So the
observation remains valid, if disproportional.
My statement
> was clear. The response was half-assed.
I've found such an observation to be more convincing when it doesn't
come from a participant in an exchange. :-)
My statement further
> made no statement of fact concerning "bulk of murderers,"
> "reducing the population of murderers," or "reducing the
> population of potential murderers." Explain to me how recidivism
> can be UNCONDITIONALLY ASSUMED AS AN IMPOSSIBILITY,"
> if a convicted murderer is still alive. I need that crystal ball for
my
> next stock purchase.
Perhaps you can state why you support the dp. From your comments, I
inferred that you wanted to prevent murders. Doing so meaningfully
requires reducing the number of potential murderers and the dp will
never accomplish that and not revulse normal people.
> > Then in the
> > > ultimate absurdity, you would suggest we execute
> > > ALL young men
> >
> > I think it's safe to believe that was intended as satire through
> > absurdity rather than a serious proposal.
>
> You may think so, but the tenor of the post was more
> confrontational than satiric.
I would think one so well versed in confrontation would be able to
discern the difference between it and satire.
And if it was intended as satire,
> the poster better return to the Joe Miller Joke Book. And I
> hardly see the satire in a suggestion to execute all young men.
You don't believe "A Modest Proposal" is satire then? You may recall
that Swift's essay proposed that the problem of hunger be resolved by
eating babies.
> > (not to mention a sexist approach to
> > > the broad subject of the DP)
> >
> > The sexism of the dp is well established by a simple review of the
> > numbers. Women are underrepresented on death row in numbers than
can
> > only be charitably described as miniscule.
>
> Nevertheless, the suggestion was that we should execute
> all young men because they are OVERREPRESENTED in
> our use of the DP. What next... perhaps the old racial card
> can now be disclosed???
We play the racial card daily in prisons and death row and in the
courts. We play the sex card almost every time a woman murders a man.
How about addressing *that* fact.
> > ONLY the DP insures no possibility of recidivism of
> > > one CONVICTED and SENTENCED to the DP.
> >
> > The implicit point has to do with being able to identify in advance,
> > those who will commit murder. One of the often repeated (and mostly
> > irrelevant to murder recidivism) comments is that parolees account
for
> > thousands of murders. Nearly all of those are *not* convicted
> > murderers so we have a long way to go before we actually understand,
> > let alone gain control, who will commit murder. The record of
> > murderers released who re-offend is actually pretty good when
compared
>
> > with other offenders' background.
>
> "The implicit point has to do with being able to identify in advance,
> those who will commit murder." Once again I need that crystal ball.
I think you've got it - we cannot identify in advance those who would
murder, so any suggestion that the dp will deal effectively with the
murder rate is pure hypocrisy.
> But, get out of here -- a 3% to 6% recidivist rate is GOOD. Take a
> look at some of the past posts verifying this observation. If applied
> to
> the general population that would mean 3% to 6% of all citizens
> commit murder!!! You figure it out, because I did in a previous post.
What are you trying to say? You have a better understanding of what's
inside your head than I - please elaborate.
A Planet Visitor
<10wh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8hqrgf$slp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
No. You MAY make a clean new statement to present your viewpoint.
You may not twist my statement to claim that the logic you would
argue can be applied to my statement. My statement was clearly
limited to convicted murderers. It does not follow that my statement
can be applied to any other group, except convicted murderers.
You and your clan followers are failing Logic 101 miserably. Using
the logic you have claimed to be precisely the same as my statement
leads to the contradiction that everyone, EVERYONE who has EVER
offended for whatever reason (such as you are now doing to me),
should be executed to insure they do not offend again. However, in
your case I believe I WILL make an exception, and allow it to follow
logically.
> >
> > Now tell me again how my statement in any way, by any
> > extension of logic can be presumed to imply that using precisely
> > the same logic one may argue for the EXECUTION OF ALL RAPISTS,
> > ALL BURGLARS, OR EVEN PARKING OFFENDERS.
>
> Rape, burglary and parking offenses are more common than murder. In
> some jurisdictions, such offenses can result in the dp. So the
> observation remains valid, if disproportional.
Why, oh Why, do the stupid ones always gravitate to my posts???
How can I now dumbdown my response once again, to get through
to you??? Look, go back above to my original statement. Explain
to me how recidivism can be "UNCONDITIONALLY ASSUMED
AS IMPOSSIBLE," if the person is not dead. Take the most absurd
example I can muster to make you see what I said. Imagine a
quadriplegic, confined totally to a wheelchair, incased in a steel
vault, for which the key has been thrown away, because he is a
convicted murderer. Now imagine that he has secreted within his
mouth before his incarceration a small arrow tipped with a deadly
poison, which will break to release this poison only when it strikes
a solid object. Now the guard passes food to the prisoner which
he/she must sip with a straw. Instead the quadriplegic inserts the
arrow with his tongue into the straw. Now the guard returns and
inserts his hand into the opening to retrieve the food tray. At this
point the quadriplegic blows the poison arrow into the hand of the
guard, killing him instantly. Unlikely? -- Certainly. Very
nlikely? --
without a doubt. As close to impossible as one wishes to believe?
-- Of course. UNCONDITIONALLY ASSUMED AS IMPOSSIBLE?
-- Not a chance. I have presented conditions which are NOT
IMPOSSIBLE. Now consider a dead person. Place that dead
person in the middle of a football field, filled with spectators,
place as many Uzi's as you can possibly find surrounding the
body. Can they kill again? -- NO, IT MUST BE
UNCONDITIONALLY ASSUMED AS IMPOSSIBLE. NO ONE
HAS RISEN FROM THE DEAD (Save in Hollywood
extravaganzas) for 2000 years, and he was no killer.
>
> My statement
> > was clear. The response was half-assed.
>
> I've found such an observation to be more convincing when it doesn't
> come from a participant in an exchange. :-)
I don't care if you heard it from the Pope. You goofy bunch stick
together like glue. You take a perfectly logical sentence and turn
it into a travesty. How can one assume that you have any scruples
at all in your attack on the DP, if you begin to twist such a perfectly
clear and logically statement, into possibly including, burglars, jay-
walkers, and perhaps sexual contact between consenting adults.
Let me make this CLEAR. If you wish to make statements or
comments of any sort, regarding any aspect of the DP, you are
free to do so. But you are not free to take MY sentence... Clearly
and logically a statement with limited parameters (Read it again),
and abstractly imply that what I really meant was something else,
which you now wish to object to. If you object to the clear statement
I made, then please provide an example of a convicted and executed
murderer having killed again... citing the complete particulars of the
case.
>
> My statement further
> > made no statement of fact concerning "bulk of murderers,"
> > "reducing the population of murderers," or "reducing the
> > population of potential murderers." Explain to me how recidivism
> > can be UNCONDITIONALLY ASSUMED AS AN IMPOSSIBILITY,"
> > if a convicted murderer is still alive. I need that crystal ball
for
> my
> > next stock purchase.
>
> Perhaps you can state why you support the dp. From your comments, I
> inferred that you wanted to prevent murders. Doing so meaningfully
> requires reducing the number of potential murderers and the dp will
> never accomplish that and not revulse normal people.
>
I need not, nor do I care to, even discuss why I support the DP, with
one who tends to twist simple and logic statements into absurdities.
You're really beneath my concern in this matter. I just want others
who might be misled, to know the stupidity of your logic.
> > > Then in the
> > > > ultimate absurdity, you would suggest we execute
> > > > ALL young men
> > >
> > > I think it's safe to believe that was intended as satire through
> > > absurdity rather than a serious proposal.
> >
> > You may think so, but the tenor of the post was more
> > confrontational than satiric.
>
> I would think one so well versed in confrontation would be able to
> discern the difference between it and satire.
I only extend satire to where it is well deserved, and it always
clearly represents satire (it's funny). Your claim to satire is rather
sick at its roots. I would never suggest that executing all young
men, under any pretext, would be considered satire. Perhaps
you also consider the holocaust as just a pleasant train ride into
never-never land?
>
> And if it was intended as satire,
> > the poster better return to the Joe Miller Joke Book. And I
> > hardly see the satire in a suggestion to execute all young men.
>
> You don't believe "A Modest Proposal" is satire then? You may recall
> that Swift's essay proposed that the problem of hunger be resolved by
> eating babies.
To quote Lloyd Bentsen - "I've read Jonathan Swift... And you Sir, are
no Jonathan Swift."
>
> > > (not to mention a sexist approach to
> > > > the broad subject of the DP)
> > >
> > > The sexism of the dp is well established by a simple review of the
> > > numbers. Women are underrepresented on death row in numbers than
> can
> > > only be charitably described as miniscule.
And your point is??? Not that I really care.
> >
> > Nevertheless, the suggestion was that we should execute
> > all young men because they are OVERREPRESENTED in
> > our use of the DP. What next... perhaps the old racial card
> > can now be disclosed???
>
> We play the racial card daily in prisons and death row and in the
> courts. We play the sex card almost every time a woman murders a man.
> How about addressing *that* fact.
>
And your point is??? I need address no fact for you. This dialog
was started by you extrapolating a false conclusion from my
statement. My only concern is to convince others of your stupidity,
as I am already well aware of it. If you wish to start a dialog of
your own addressing *that* fact, I will certainly look forward to
ignoring it.
> > > ONLY the DP insures no possibility of recidivism of
> > > > one CONVICTED and SENTENCED to the DP.
> > >
> > > The implicit point has to do with being able to identify in
advance,
> > > those who will commit murder. One of the often repeated (and
mostly
> > > irrelevant to murder recidivism) comments is that parolees account
> for
> > > thousands of murders. Nearly all of those are *not* convicted
> > > murderers so we have a long way to go before we actually
understand,
> > > let alone gain control, who will commit murder. The record of
> > > murderers released who re-offend is actually pretty good when
> > > compared
> > >
> > > with other offenders' background.
> >
> > "The implicit point has to do with being able to identify in
advance,
> > those who will commit murder." Once again I need that crystal ball.
>
> I think you've got it - we cannot identify in advance those who would
> murder, so any suggestion that the dp will deal effectively with the
> murder rate is pure hypocrisy.
>
You actually have the effrontery to use the word "Hypocrisy," is your
thread to me? If ever there was hypocrisy at work, it is fully
recognized in your shameless illogical extension applied to my
two sentence statement.
> > But, get out of here -- a 3% to 6% recidivist rate is GOOD. Take a
> > look at some of the past posts verifying this observation. If
applied
> > to
> > the general population that would mean 3% to 6% of all citizens
> > commit murder!!! You figure it out, because I did in a previous
post.
>
> What are you trying to say? You have a better understanding of what's
> inside your head than I - please elaborate.
Why??? You failed to understand a statement which a fifth-grader could
have grasped. Why should I take on the job of teacher for one with
such limited possibilities? For me to elaborate, would undoubtedly
only further confuse you. Being ASKED to elaborate on anything by
you, is similar to being called ugly by a frog.
10wh...@my-deja.com
> > In article <BBT%4.29738
$2X2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > <10wh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8hoq12$cmj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > In article <8UN%4.29122
> > $2X2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > Now tell me again how my statement in any way, by any
> > > extension of logic can be presumed to imply that using precisely
> > > the same logic one may argue for the EXECUTION OF ALL RAPISTS,
> > > ALL BURGLARS, OR EVEN PARKING OFFENDERS.
> >
> > Rape, burglary and parking offenses are more common than murder. In
> > some jurisdictions, such offenses can result in the dp. So the
> > observation remains valid, if disproportional.
>
> Why, oh Why, do the stupid ones always gravitate to my posts???
Flies to shit?
> How can I now dumbdown my response once again, to get through
> to you???
I'm sure a man of your caliber can reach new depths to enlighten those
who've not yet reached satori.
[Statement of the obvious deleted to save money for those who pay by
the byte.]
> > My statement
> > > was clear. The response was half-assed.
> >
> > I've found such an observation to be more convincing when it doesn't
> > come from a participant in an exchange. :-)
>
> I don't care if you heard it from the Pope. You goofy bunch stick
> together like glue. You take a perfectly logical sentence and turn
> it into a travesty. How can one assume that you have any scruples
> at all in your attack on the DP, if you begin to twist such a
perfectly
> clear and logically statement, into possibly including, burglars, jay-
> walkers, and perhaps sexual contact between consenting adults.
Sigh. Stop raging long enough to read the post you're responding to.
Or find someone who can read to do it for you. Your statement of the
obvious (that dead people don't do anything) applies to murderers,
rapists, burglars, housewives, carpenters and farmers. You spend so
much effort denigrating those with a different opinion that you
denigrate your own in doing so.
> Let me make this CLEAR. If you wish to make statements or
> comments of any sort, regarding any aspect of the DP, you are
> free to do so. But you are not free to take MY sentence...
I am free to do whatever I wish with your sentence so long as it isn't
libelous or slanderous. And I hope you don't like it.
Clearly
> and logically a statement with limited parameters (Read it again),
> and abstractly imply that what I really meant was something else,
> which you now wish to object to.
If you are unable to express yourself adequately, please get help. I
understand there is a popular 12 step program known as first through
twelfth grades.
> > My statement further
> > > made no statement of fact concerning "bulk of murderers,"
> > > "reducing the population of murderers," or "reducing the
> > > population of potential murderers." Explain to me how recidivism
> > > can be UNCONDITIONALLY ASSUMED AS AN IMPOSSIBILITY,"
> > > if a convicted murderer is still alive. I need that crystal ball
> for
> > my
> > > next stock purchase.
> >
> > Perhaps you can state why you support the dp. From your comments, I
> > inferred that you wanted to prevent murders. Doing so meaningfully
> > requires reducing the number of potential murderers and the dp will
> > never accomplish that and not revulse normal people.
> >
> I need not, nor do I care to, even discuss why I support the DP,
Then you can expect to never hold meaningful discussions. I only ask
to determine what you believe is the purpose of the dp. I inferred you
wanted to prevent further murders, but the facts show that your
approach isn't a viable one. And you've further reinforced it by not
attacking the source of most murderers - the general population and
other inmates without a murder conviction.
> > > > Then in the
> > > > > ultimate absurdity, you would suggest we execute
> > > > > ALL young men
> > > >
> > > > I think it's safe to believe that was intended as satire through
> > > > absurdity rather than a serious proposal.
> > >
> > > You may think so, but the tenor of the post was more
> > > confrontational than satiric.
> >
> > I would think one so well versed in confrontation would be able to
> > discern the difference between it and satire.
>
> I only extend satire to where it is well deserved, and it always
> clearly represents satire (it's funny).
You have a limited view of satire - satire is often grimly witty and
ironic. What is satire is not necessarily funny and what is funny is
not necessarily satirical.
Your claim to satire is rather
> sick at its roots. I would never suggest that executing all young
> men, under any pretext, would be considered satire. Perhaps
> you also consider the holocaust as just a pleasant train ride into
> never-never land?
> >
> > And if it was intended as satire,
> > > the poster better return to the Joe Miller Joke Book. And I
> > > hardly see the satire in a suggestion to execute all young men.
> >
> > You don't believe "A Modest Proposal" is satire then? You may
recall
> > that Swift's essay proposed that the problem of hunger be resolved
by
> > eating babies.
>
> To quote Lloyd Bentsen - "I've read Jonathan Swift... And you Sir, are
> no Jonathan Swift."
That would be to *paraphrase*, not to "quote". For such a brilliant
logician and articulate advocate, you seem to have tripped over your
shoelaces. Anyway, I agree, neither I nor the author of the first
comment have literary talents like Swift. BTW, since Swift's essay
wasn't funny, does it follow then that it wasn't satire?
> > > > (not to mention a sexist approach to
> > > > > the broad subject of the DP)
> > > >
> > > > The sexism of the dp is well established by a simple review of
the
> > > > numbers. Women are underrepresented on death row in numbers
than
> > can
> > > > only be charitably described as miniscule.
>
> And your point is??? Not that I really care.
Why did you mention sexism if you had nothing to say on the subject?
> > > Nevertheless, the suggestion was that we should execute
> > > all young men because they are OVERREPRESENTED in
> > > our use of the DP. What next... perhaps the old racial card
> > > can now be disclosed???
> >
> > We play the racial card daily in prisons and death row and in the
> > courts. We play the sex card almost every time a woman murders a
man.
> > How about addressing *that* fact.
> >
> [...] My only concern is to convince others of your stupidity,
Brilliant! Just brilliant - why you almost have me convinced. Except
of course, that I don't have your talent, and I wouldn't want to occupy
your only brain cell.
[...]
> > I think you've got it - we cannot identify in advance those who
would
> > murder, so any suggestion that the dp will deal effectively with the
> > murder rate is pure hypocrisy.
> >
> You actually have the effrontery to use the word "Hypocrisy," is your
> thread to me?
Yes, I actually do!
If ever there was hypocrisy at work, it is fully
> recognized in your shameless illogical extension applied to my
> two sentence statement.
You seem to believe (it's hard to tell) that executing only convicted
murderers will somehow reduce the murder rate. Since there is almost
univeral agreement that murderers represent a small portion of the
population, and since capital punishment has done nothing over the past
4-5 millenia to eliminate murder, then it must be true that to reduce
the murder rate, potential murderers must be dealt with also. (And
then those with the potential to be potential murderers.)
> > > But, get out of here -- a 3% to 6% recidivist rate is GOOD. Take
a
> > > look at some of the past posts verifying this observation. If
> applied
> > > to
> > > the general population that would mean 3% to 6% of all citizens
> > > commit murder!!! You figure it out, because I did in a previous
> post.
> >
> > What are you trying to say? You have a better understanding of
what's
> > inside your head than I - please elaborate.
>
> Why???
Er, because "you figure it out" isn't world class debating technique?
You failed to understand a statement which a fifth-grader could
> have grasped. Why should I take on the job of teacher for one with
> such limited possibilities? For me to elaborate, would undoubtedly
> only further confuse you. Being ASKED to elaborate on anything by
> you, is similar to being called ugly by a frog.
Possibly. OTOH, the statement above appears to be far more unclear
than your other writings (if that's possible) so perhaps you would help
the many who have not achieved your level of insight and wisdom.
A Planet Visitor
supposedly on the principles of morality, could stoop to
deception to advance their opinions, and stupidly change
the content of a simple statement to conform to their
perverted logic. I almost have sympathy for your cause
when I see it defended by someone whose wheel is
turning, but whose hamster is obviously dead.
Let's try again. My original statement:
"Under any conditions, other than the DP, recidivism can never be
unconditionally assumed as an impossibility. Escape and the
possibility of future release of convicted murderers, will always
exist until the natural demise of the convicted murderer."
Now, as you did, one may THINK he's found a logical connection
to associate Burglars, and parking violators with this statement,
with the statement reworded as:
"Under any conditions, other than the DP, recidivism can never be
unconditionally assumed as an impossibility. Escape and the
possibility of future release of "anyone," will always exist until the
natural demise of the "anyone."
Now if you claim those two statements mean exactly the same,
them you may in fact claim some sort of victory, by substituting
whatever you wish -- gays, Jews, Blacks... whatever suits
your pleasure of the day... but I would venture to assume that
this is a rather hollow victory since the wording you would insert
is less than moral or logical or understandable. It simply means
replacing murderers with "anyone," assuming that "anyone" can
fill the shoes of the statement. For someone who has taken the
principle of the DP to be a moral principle, I think your logic is
quite immoral.
<10wh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8i2puj$48u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <D6k05.4978$hp4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >
> > <10wh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8hqrgf$slp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <BBT%4.29738
> $2X2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <10wh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8hoq12$cmj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > In article <8UN%4.29122
> > > $2X2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > > > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > Why, oh Why, do the stupid ones always gravitate to my posts???
>
> Flies to shit?
It's old. And I first heard it in 6th grade. If you're going to insult
try
a little originality.
>
> > How can I now dumbdown my response once again, to get through
> > to you???
>
> I'm sure a man of your caliber can reach new depths to enlighten those
> who've not yet reached satori.
I keep trying, but you keep digging. It's sort of like you're digging a
cellar to stupidity.
> > How can one assume that you have any scruples
> > at all in your attack on the DP, if you begin to twist such a
> > perfectly
> > clear and logically statement, into possibly including, burglars,
jay-
> > walkers, and perhaps sexual contact between consenting adults.
>
> Sigh. Stop raging long enough to read the post you're responding to.
> Or find someone who can read to do it for you. Your statement of the
> obvious (that dead people don't do anything) applies to murderers,
> rapists, burglars, housewives, carpenters and farmers. You spend so
> much effort denigrating those with a different opinion that you
> denigrate your own in doing so.
I only rage when someone deserves that rage... and your efforts to turn
a perfect clear, innocuous statement into some form of absurdity,
certainly qualify as an attack on sanity?? You are obviously one sick
sucker.
>
> > Let me make this CLEAR. If you wish to make statements or
> > comments of any sort, regarding any aspect of the DP, you are
> > free to do so. But you are not free to take MY sentence...
>
> I am free to do whatever I wish with your sentence so long as it isn't
> libelous or slanderous. And I hope you don't like it.
No, I didn't like it before, but I'm rather warming to the fact that
you're obviously a quite superficial farce, and a fool without a
clear rational thought in his head. If you find pleasure in reciting
6th grade jokes, and sick satire in what you would claim a moral
defense of a principle, you're welcome to make a fool of yourself
all you wish. Good luck.
>
> Clearly
> > and logically a statement with limited parameters (Read it again),
> > and abstractly imply that what I really meant was something else,
> > which you now wish to object to.
>
> If you are unable to express yourself adequately, please get help. I
> understand there is a popular 12 step program known as first through
> twelfth grades.
This from flies on shit??? Your about a neuron short of a synapse, if
you ask me. Please Lord... Don't have him ask me what that means.
>
> Then you can expect to never hold meaningful discussions. I only ask
> to determine what you believe is the purpose of the dp. I inferred
you
> wanted to prevent further murders, but the facts show that your
> approach isn't a viable one. And you've further reinforced it by not
> attacking the source of most murderers - the general population and
> other inmates without a murder conviction.
Meaningful discussions?? You're the guy that reads statistics upside
down if they don't reflect what YOU want them to reflect. You really
call your first irrational attack on a clearly innocuous statement I
made
a meaningful discussion?? Come on... who are you really?? The
Anti-Christ... Stalin reincarnate... Genghis Khan come back. Fess up.
You're really pro-DP, but just disguising yourself to demonstrate
how stupid the anti-DP "fringe element" really is, aren't you?
>
> > > > > Then in the
> > > > > > ultimate absurdity, you would suggest we execute
> > > > > > ALL young men
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it's safe to believe that was intended as satire
through
> > > > > absurdity rather than a serious proposal.
> > > >
> > > > You may think so, but the tenor of the post was more
> > > > confrontational than satiric.
> > >
> > > I would think one so well versed in confrontation would be able to
> > > discern the difference between it and satire.
> >
> > I only extend satire to where it is well deserved, and it always
> > clearly represents satire (it's funny).
>
> You have a limited view of satire - satire is often grimly witty and
> ironic. What is satire is not necessarily funny and what is funny is
> not necessarily satirical.
There is certainly a place for satire as you describe, but not in the
arena we are in. People who are DP activists either pro or con do
not view such as humorous. I have studiously tried to avoid any
humor in that vein, and if you refer to your original comparison of
"all young men," right below you'll see I compared that to the
holocaust... and not in a humorous vein, but rather to reflect how
sick I believed the comparison to be regardless of any mistaken
perception by you that it might be humorous. And I have often
mentioned the holocaust to point out the absurdity of some other
posts to this newsgroup. You can attack with sarcasm, humor,
satire, disdain, insult or anything you wish toward myself or any
other person if you think you can stand the heat. What you
shouldn't do, however; is use these same methods to attack the
principles involved. This is certainly beyond you, but ask one of
your elders to explain it to you. In effect, you really need to
grow up and stop thinking the DP is some sort of game, with
winners and losers. Your smartass and pseudo-intellectual attempt
to insert satire here borders on a mental sickness.
>
> Your claim to satire is rather
> > sick at its roots. I would never suggest that executing all young
> > men, under any pretext, would be considered satire. Perhaps
> > you also consider the holocaust as just a pleasant train ride into
> > never-never land?
> > >
> > > And if it was intended as satire,
> > > > the poster better return to the Joe Miller Joke Book. And I
> > > > hardly see the satire in a suggestion to execute all young men.
> > >
> > > You don't believe "A Modest Proposal" is satire then? You may
> recall
> > > that Swift's essay proposed that the problem of hunger be resolved
> by
> > > eating babies.
> >
> > To quote Lloyd Bentsen - "I've read Jonathan Swift... And you Sir,
are
> > no Jonathan Swift."
>
> That would be to *paraphrase*, not to "quote". For such a brilliant
> logician and articulate advocate, you seem to have tripped over your
> shoelaces. Anyway, I agree, neither I nor the author of the first
> comment have literary talents like Swift. BTW, since Swift's essay
> wasn't funny, does it follow then that it wasn't satire?
Now we have the "paraphrase" police at work. Do you really think
I give a shit, over a stupid word, when you talk about executing "all
young men?"
It doesn't matter if it was funny or not funny, satirical or not
satirical,
humorous or not humorous... what it really represented was a quite
inappropriate comment regarding executing "all young men," and
"eating babies." If you think it was any of those things, then the
judgment will be in the "eye of the beholder." Those others who
read these posts. There's never a wrong time to do the right thing,
so perhaps you should apologize to other members of this
newsgroup for making a less than moral comparison (regardless
of the intent), to an existing situation. But I really don't expect
that
to happen.
>
> > > > Nevertheless, the suggestion was that we should execute
> > > > all young men because they are OVERREPRESENTED in
> > > > our use of the DP. What next... perhaps the old racial card
> > > > can now be disclosed???
> > >
> > > We play the racial card daily in prisons and death row and in the
> > > courts. We play the sex card almost every time a woman murders a
> > > man.
> > > How about addressing *that* fact.
> > >
Is that the Imperial "We." Do you perhaps feel "We" should execute
only a certain percentage of women, and races, depending upon their
relative representation in the use of the DP? If only 5% of Death
Row inmates are women, then do you propose "We" should only
execute 5% of the general population of young women and the
same percentages by race? Your entire post is absurd, immoral,
and staggeringly inane.
> > [...] My only concern is to convince others of your stupidity,
>
> Brilliant! Just brilliant - why you almost have me convinced. Except
> of course, that I don't have your talent, and I wouldn't want to
occupy
> your only brain cell.
>
Repartee... Deep, profound and funnnny repartee. Don't quit your day
job.
Of course, you have two brains... it's just that one is out looking for
the other.
> > > What are you trying to say? You have a better understanding of
> what's
> > > inside your head than I - please elaborate.
> >
> > Why???
>
> Er, because "you figure it out" isn't world class debating technique?
I never entered into any debate with you. Your just an arrogant
swine who deserves no debate. If you can't figure out what I said,
just try harder, or get some help from someone a shade less stupid
than you are... that shouldn't be difficult.
>
> You failed to understand a statement which a fifth-grader could
> > have grasped. Why should I take on the job of teacher for one with
> > such limited possibilities? For me to elaborate, would undoubtedly
> > only further confuse you. Being ASKED to elaborate on anything by
> > you, is similar to being called ugly by a frog.
>
> Possibly. OTOH, the statement above appears to be far more unclear
> than your other writings (if that's possible) so perhaps you would
help
> the many who have not achieved your level of insight and wisdom.
I'm so glad you asked. Talk to your Mother. She must know all about
ugly and frogs, having given birth to you.
10wh...@my-deja.com
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
[Ad hominem deleted.]
> Let's try again. My original statement:
>
> "Under any conditions, other than the DP, recidivism can never be
> unconditionally assumed as an impossibility. Escape and the
> possibility of future release of convicted murderers, will always
> exist until the natural demise of the convicted murderer."
>
> Now, as you did, one may THINK he's found a logical connection
> to associate Burglars, and parking violators with this statement,
> with the statement reworded as:
>
> "Under any conditions, other than the DP, recidivism can never be
> unconditionally assumed as an impossibility. Escape and the
> possibility of future release of "anyone," will always exist until the
> natural demise of the "anyone."
>
> Now if you claim those two statements mean exactly the same,
Well, the data on recidivism would certainly indicate that those
convicted of burglary and many other minor crimes, repeat them
regularly. As you well know, but refuse to acknowledge, the extension
of your logic was done to illustrate that the statement is largely
meaningless.
[Ad hominem deleted.]
> <10wh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8i2puj$48u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <D6k05.4978$hp4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > <10wh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8hqrgf$slp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > In article <BBT%4.29738
> > $2X2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <10wh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8hoq12$cmj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > > In article <8UN%4.29122
> > > > $2X2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > > > > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > How can I now dumbdown my response once again, to get through
> > > to you???
> >
> > I'm sure a man of your caliber can reach new depths to enlighten
those
> > who've not yet reached satori.
>
> I keep trying, but you keep digging. It's sort of like you're
digging a
> cellar to stupidity.
Apparently everyone is "stupid" to you. Having made it clear you do
not understand satire, let me hasten to explain that my comment above
was not satire, but sarcasm.
[Ad homina deleted.]
> > > Let me make this CLEAR. If you wish to make statements or
> > > comments of any sort, regarding any aspect of the DP, you are
> > > free to do so. But you are not free to take MY sentence...
> >
> > I am free to do whatever I wish with your sentence so long as it
isn't
> > libelous or slanderous. And I hope you don't like it.
>
> No, I didn't like it before,
Good. Now I can die happy. :-)
[Many more ad homina deleted.]
> > > > > > Then in the
> > > > > > > ultimate absurdity, you would suggest we execute
> > > > > > > ALL young men
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it's safe to believe that was intended as satire
> through
> > > > > > absurdity rather than a serious proposal.
> > > > >
> > > > > You may think so, but the tenor of the post was more
> > > > > confrontational than satiric.
> > > >
> > > > I would think one so well versed in confrontation would be able
to
> > > > discern the difference between it and satire.
> > >
> > > I only extend satire to where it is well deserved, and it always
> > > clearly represents satire (it's funny).
> >
> > You have a limited view of satire - satire is often grimly witty and
> > ironic. What is satire is not necessarily funny and what is funny
is
> > not necessarily satirical.
>
> There is certainly a place for satire as you describe, but not in the
> arena we are in.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. When you put forward a tautology
such as "dead men don't recidivize", you can expect the emptiness of
that statement to be ridiculed. When you put forward an ill conceived
notion that all murderers should be killed to avoid more murders, then
in light of the fact that recidivist murders account for such a tiny
proportion of total murders, you can expect to have that fact pointed
out to you. Whether or not you notice that it undermines your case is
dependent on you.
[...]
You can attack with sarcasm, humor,
> satire, disdain, insult or anything you wish toward myself or any
> other person if you think you can stand the heat. What you
> shouldn't do, however; is use these same methods to attack the
> principles involved.
Tough. I don't wish to attack you personally - you may be a perfectly
nice guy. I will attack your positions and expose the flaws I see
within, using rational analysis or satire or sarcasm, whether you enjoy
it or not.
[More ad homina deleted.]
> > > To quote Lloyd Bentsen - "I've read Jonathan Swift... And you Sir,
> are
> > > no Jonathan Swift."
> >
> > That would be to *paraphrase*, not to "quote". For such a brilliant
> > logician and articulate advocate, you seem to have tripped over your
> > shoelaces. Anyway, I agree, neither I nor the author of the first
> > comment have literary talents like Swift. BTW, since Swift's essay
> > wasn't funny, does it follow then that it wasn't satire?
>
> Now we have the "paraphrase" police at work. Do you really think
> I give a shit, over a stupid word, when you talk about executing "all
> young men?"
If one is sloppy with language, one cannot communicate effectively. If
one is sloppy with capital punishment, then we kill those people
falsely accused, people who don't merit death, people whose lawyers
slept through their trials who are disproportionately poor and
minorities.
[More ad homina deletions.]
> > > > We play the racial card daily in prisons and death row and in
the
> > > > courts. We play the sex card almost every time a woman murders
a
> > > > man.
> > > > How about addressing *that* fact.
> > > >
> Is that the Imperial "We."
No. That was the collective "we", as in we as a society who sponsors a
particular judicial process play the race card and sex cards daily in
prisons, death row and the courts.
Do you perhaps feel "We" should execute
> only a certain percentage of women, and races, depending upon their
> relative representation in the use of the DP? If only 5% of Death
> Row inmates are women, then do you propose "We" should only
> execute 5% of the general population of young women and the
> same percentages by race?
I'm not suggesting a quota system at all. We can recognize the vast
disparities between the sex- and race-neutral language of the law and
the number of women and minorities who are incarcerated. When we have
consistency in application, the numbers will follow - we shouldn't
establish specific numerical targets.
[More ad homina deleted.]
> > Er, because "you figure it out" isn't world class debating
technique?
>
> I never entered into any debate with you.
This is true. All you've done is name call.
Your just an arrogant
> swine who deserves no debate. If you can't figure out what I said,
> just try harder, or get some help from someone a shade less stupid
> than you are... that shouldn't be difficult.
> >
> > You failed to understand a statement which a fifth-grader could
> > > have grasped. Why should I take on the job of teacher for one
with
> > > such limited possibilities? For me to elaborate, would
undoubtedly
> > > only further confuse you. Being ASKED to elaborate on anything by
> > > you, is similar to being called ugly by a frog.
> >
> > Possibly. OTOH, the statement above appears to be far more unclear
> > than your other writings (if that's possible) so perhaps you would
> help
> > the many who have not achieved your level of insight and wisdom.
>
> I'm so glad you asked. Talk to your Mother. She must know all about
> ugly and frogs, having given birth to you.
Perhaps you'll now return to the planet from whence you emanated.