Hiding Behind Aliases ...
Desmond Coughlan
death-...@egroups.com. */
Abolitionists, in general, are _for_ human rights. That is, we believe
that no one should ne put to death by the state. There are variations on
this theme, of course: some believe that the state has the right, in theory,
to carry out executions, but not in practice, due to the very real possibility
that an innocent will be put to death. Some believe that irrespective of the
crime, irrespective of how depraved the criminal, the state should not and
(morally) cannot derogate from the Universal Right to Life. I come into this
latter category.
I have personally never encountered an abolitionist on this group, who has
made threats of physical violence against another poster.
This morning, as I ate my croissant and drank my coffee, a question came to
me. Why, given this 'peaceable' nature on the part of abolitionists, do
the vast majority of retentionists post to this newsgroup, either under a
false name ('moniker'), or by masking their name and e-mail address ?
I have (of course) my pet theory, but I'd be interested in hearing from the
retentionists.
--
Desmond Coughlan des...@coughlan.net
Death Penalty Discussion Group : http://www.egroups.com/group/death-penalty
********
PGP Public Key: http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
Richard Jackson
I have to agree with you on this one Desmond. If a person is going to
have a viewpoint and post it for the World to see on the Internet,
they should have the courage to post their own name. What with the
free accounts at deja.com and other places, there is no need to do
otherwise.
--
Richard Jackson
In article <slrn975cvi...@gateway.voute.net>,
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
oda...@my-deja.com
Desmond, I think you are presenting a loaded question to *real* death
penalty supporters. Those with violent and diseased thoughts *naturally*
pose as retentionists as the vehicle for their expression, but doesn't
mean that they are! But I have wondered on more than one occasion why
those who are genuine death penalty supporters don't condemn these
obnoxious sputniks of theirs more often.
I have also wondered why you are not only the focus of attention for
these pretenders, but also: (a) A antisemitic Jew so filled with
self-loathing that he abandoned his Yiddish name and wants all Jews
executed; (b) a blue-collar closet gay's homoerotic fantasies; (c)
trolls obsessed with all things scatological; (d) (etc., etc.)
Actually, I suspect that if it was thoroughly investigated, there are
only 2 or 3 sickos that are regularly causing 95% of the abuse in this
NG at present. If there seems to be more is only because of their sock
puppetry. But I don't regard them as death penalty supporters-- they
are not worthy of the appellation!
Ben
"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@gateway.voute.net> wrote:
> . . . .
> This morning, as I ate my croissant and drank my coffee, a question came
to
> me. Why, given this 'peaceable' nature on the part of abolitionists, do
> the vast majority of retentionists post to this newsgroup, either under a
> false name ('moniker'), or by masking their name and e-mail address ?
>
> I have (of course) my pet theory, but I'd be interested in hearing from
the
> retentionists.
i'm not a retentionist but i too use an alias, i.e. a variation of my real
name.
my reasons for it are really quite simple. i'd just as soon maintain some
control over the boundaries between usenet and real-life. put differently,
i prefer some degree of anonymity when posting. besides, what
possible difference does it make if i use my name or an alias? it's
irrelevant to the content.
A Planet Visitor
news:slrn975cvi...@gateway.voute.net...
> /* Article posted simultaneously to alt.activism.death-penalty and
> death-...@egroups.com. */
>
> Abolitionists, in general, are _for_ human rights. That is, we believe
> that no one should ne put to death by the state. There are variations on
> this theme, of course: some believe that the state has the right, in theory,
> to carry out executions, but not in practice, due to the very real possibility
> that an innocent will be put to death. Some believe that irrespective of the
> crime, irrespective of how depraved the criminal, the state should not and
> (morally) cannot derogate from the Universal Right to Life. I come into this
> latter category.
>
> I have personally never encountered an abolitionist on this group, who has
> made threats of physical violence against another poster.
>
> This morning, as I ate my croissant and drank my coffee, a question came to
> me. Why, given this 'peaceable' nature on the part of abolitionists, do
> the vast majority of retentionists post to this newsgroup, either under a
> false name ('moniker'), or by masking their name and e-mail address ?
>
> I have (of course) my pet theory, but I'd be interested in hearing from the
> retentionists.
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan des...@coughlan.net
I find it truly fascinating that some are so obsessed by having a name,
regardless of how false that name, or e-mail address, attached to
a handle. It's almost as if those who see these anonymous handles,
fear the words as a threat to their views, and need something to grab
onto other than the thoughts expressed. It's as if they are frightened
by the words to the point that an irrational need arises to somehow
learn more of the writer, than the views the writer expresses. Like
Ben has remarked, I separate my personal life from my thoughts in
this newsgroup, and have no desire to commingle the two. Should I
provide my name and e-mail address to receive posts from Keith
Luscombe? Is he of the 'peaceable' nature you speak of for
abolitionists? Believe me, I exist... I am a person, not a machine.
It's especially intriguing given the ethnic origins of some of those who
feel this need to know a name (hell, call me Albert P. Vi'sitor, if it makes
you happy). Because both the English and the French have a deep
respect for anonymous writing. Perhaps the most famous publication
concerning this emanates from 'A Dictionary of the Anonymous
and Pseudonymous Literature of Great Britain,' by Samuel Halkett, and the
Rev. John Laing. A 4-volume masterpiece. A quote from a reviewer
noted.. "In the whole history of literature there is not a more fantastical
group of whimsicalities than that of English pseudonyms which abound
between 1688 and 1800..." Who was the Hon. Impulsia Gushington -
responsible for "Lispings from Low Latitudes"? Which Prime Minister
wrote "Mephistopheles in England - a confession?" Hell, I don't know!
I can't afford the $1,000 that this masterpiece usually costs.
Then we also have "The Secrets of Our National Literature: Chapters
in the History of the Anonymous and Pseudonymous Writings of our
Countrymen," written by William Courtney, British antiquary and
bibliographer.
And for the French of heart, we have the "Dictionnaire Des Ouvrages
Anonymes," by Antoine-Alexandre Barbier. A 2533 page tome. Also
running in the $500-600 range for a used copy. And "Introduction a
l'etude des Pastourelles anonymes Francaises des XIIe et XIIIe
siecles." 12th and 13th Century French anonymous short stories.
Then there was the publication of "The White Paper by Anonymous,"
later admitted by Jean Cocteau to have been written by him.
Then we come to the truly necessary to be anonymous publications.
Russian clandestine Literature: Solzhenitsyn, Maximov and many
others.
And of course, finally "The Nazi Kultur in Poland," by several authors
of necessity anonymous.
Don't be afraid, those of faint heart... They are only words... nothing
more... nothing less.
PV
St.George
"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@gateway.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn975cvi...@gateway.voute.net...
> death-...@egroups.com. */
>
> Abolitionists, in general, are _for_ human rights. That is, we believe
> that no one should ne put to death by the state. There are variations on
> this theme, of course: some believe that the state has the right, in
theory,
> to carry out executions, but not in practice, due to the very real
possibility
> that an innocent will be put to death.
A little 'point of order' here, just to 'fill out' the spectrum of
possibilities.
Some, like myself, oppose the d.p. _primarily_ for pragmatic reasons, and
describe ourselves as such; but this doesn't mean that we are _necessarily_
in favour of the right of the state to execute in principle (i.e. if all
practical objections were overcome).
Personally, this aspect is almost not an issue, because the criminal justice
systems are so far from being perfect that, for me, the debate can never
advance past the pragmatic - not in my lifetime at least.
Even if I was utterly convinced of the infallibility of the process, I still
would likely oppose all (peacetime) executions, if only mildly.
Hence, although pragmatism is certainly my greatest objection, it is not my
only one.
Some believe that irrespective of the
> crime, irrespective of how depraved the criminal, the state should not and
> (morally) cannot derogate from the Universal Right to Life. I come into
this
> latter category.
>
> I have personally never encountered an abolitionist on this group, who has
> made threats of physical violence against another poster.
I'm afraid this isn't true, Desmond.
It was only four days ago that I threatened to come to Tampa and kick PV's
old, wizened,
Viagra-fuelled arse up and down the street....
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <st_g...@NOSPAMnetmatters.co.uk> wrote in message
news:94v8du$f9n$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
LOL... A little bit of advice: If you do, be sure you bring a very
large iron club with you. You will need it. :-)
PV
JIGSAW1695
>From: "St.George" st_g...@NOSPAMnetmatters.co.uk
>Date: 1/27/01 2:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <94v8du$f9n$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>
You would probably wind up stuffed down a sewer where you will be eaten by
aligators, (Yes, we in Florida do have 'gators in our sewer system.)
JIGSAW1695
Date: 1/27/01 10:01 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <BYLc6.22191$Tl3.5...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>
PV
===============================
After you are done getting your ass whupped come on across the bridge to St.
Pete. we can er..... ahh.. have a beer and talk.
Mickey Mouse
to usenet is nothing but a coward!
Sincerely,
Mickey Mouse
John Rennie
"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@gateway.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn975cvi...@gateway.voute.net...
> death-...@egroups.com. */
>
> Abolitionists, in general, are _for_ human rights. That is, we believe
> that no one should ne put to death by the state. There are variations on
> this theme, of course: some believe that the state has the right, in
theory,
> to carry out executions, but not in practice, due to the very real
possibility
> that an innocent will be put to death
There are other pragmatic reasons for opposing the DP although
the above is the most important. I believe that in multi-cultural
societies even when applied fairly it is still divisive, that it produces
tensions and exposes emotions best left hidden, that it is
unduly expensive, that it influences for good or ill the
decisions of juries and that it is an indication that the society
that uses it is still primitive. Perhaps the last qualification is
not pragmatic, however, the USA still seeks to have a moral
influence in many parts of the world and her use of the DP
makes this task more difficult than it need be.
St.George
Well-researched and written, and although the paragraphs were, as usual, far
too long, the punctuation was accurate.
Grade: A-
JIGSAW1695
>Date: 1/27/01 4:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <94vek6$ua3$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
Looks like you said one of them there oxymorons there John. How can we be
"primitive" and still have a "moral influence".
Yours in Liberal Solidarity
Jigsaw
John Rennie
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010128030953...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
====================================
You can't. That was my point which, as usual, you appear to have lost.
Regards John
Ron Bargoot
>
>
> Abolitionists, in general, are _for_ human rights. That is, we believe
> that no one should ne put to death by the state.
Two seperate issues. The death penalty is only applied to those found
guilty of heinous crimes.
>There are variations on
> this theme, of course: some believe that the state has the right, in theory,
> to carry out executions, but not in practice, due to the very real possibility
> that an innocent will be put to death. Some believe that irrespective of the
> crime, irrespective of how depraved the criminal, the state should not and
> (morally) cannot derogate from the Universal Right to Life.
and some people believe that convicted murders should die.
>
> I have personally never encountered an abolitionist on this group, who has
> made threats of physical violence against another poster.
>
> This morning, as I ate my croissant and drank my coffee, a question came to
> me. Why, given this 'peaceable' nature on the part of abolitionists, do
> the vast majority of retentionists post to this newsgroup, either under a
> false name ('moniker'), or by masking their name and e-mail address ?
>
I've posted under my real name and email address, with a link to my
personal website, since day 1. So what's your point?
Ron Bargoot
http://ronbargoot.com
Peter Morris
"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@gateway.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn975cvi...@gateway.voute.net...
> This morning, as I ate my croissant and drank my coffee, a question came
to
> me. Why, given this 'peaceable' nature on the part of abolitionists, do
> the vast majority of retentionists post to this newsgroup, either under a
> false name ('moniker'), or by *masking* their name and e-mail address ?
Does this make Planet Visitor a masked debater ?
--
______________________
/_____________________(_)
| _____________________ email to
| | |__________________(_) Peter_Morris_1
| |/____________________ at Hotmail dot com
|_____________________(_)
Earl Evleth
--
----------
Dans l'article <3A758797...@tufts.edu>, Ron Bargoot
<ronald....@tufts.edu> a écrit :
>> the vast majority of retentionists post to this newsgroup, either under a
>> false name ('moniker'), or by masking their name and e-mail address ?
>>
>
> I've posted under my real name and email address, with a link to my
> personal website, since day 1. So what's your point?
He said the "vast majority". There is the idea with some of the people
who use real names and real e-mail addresses that the people who don`t
use real names and false e-mail address have some psychological quirk,
are paranoid. In fact I have never see it discussed by professional shrinks,
so we have no imput from "experts". I don`t even know if most who use
fake identities are abolitionists or retentionists, did anybody do a count??
On one other NG I post on, they are the hyperconservatives who
do this. I don`t particularly care anymore since one gets to know people
by the way they write. One guy on another NG changes his name all the time
in hopes of giving the impression that there are more people who agree with
his position than in reality. But after several postings, he is figured out.
Earl
Desmond Coughlan
> >> the vast majority of retentionists post to this newsgroup, either under a
> >> false name ('moniker'), or by masking their name and e-mail address ?
> > I've posted under my real name and email address, with a link to my
> > personal website, since day 1. So what's your point?
> He said the "vast majority". There is the idea with some of the people
> who use real names and real e-mail addresses that the people who don`t
> use real names and false e-mail address have some psychological quirk,
> are paranoid.
I think that it's called shame, Earl. Let's face it: no retentionist on
this group can really believe for a second, that his or her life would ever
be endangered by an abolitionist, despite what PV implied.
There are a few retentionists here who use their real names, and I salute
them; they have balls. The rest of them, however, must be feeling what I
can only term (justifiable) shame at the antics of their country.
{snip}
Sahan Amarasekera
Coughlan) wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:39:52 +0100, Earl Evleth <dev...@noos.fr> wrote:
>
>> >> the vast majority of retentionists post to this newsgroup, either under a
>> >> false name ('moniker'), or by masking their name and e-mail address ?
>
>> > I've posted under my real name and email address, with a link to my
>> > personal website, since day 1. So what's your point?
>
>> He said the "vast majority". There is the idea with some of the people
>> who use real names and real e-mail addresses that the people who don`t
>> use real names and false e-mail address have some psychological quirk,
>> are paranoid.
>
>I think that it's called shame, Earl. Let's face it: no retentionist on
>this group can really believe for a second, that his or her life would ever
>be endangered by an abolitionist, despite what PV implied.
>
>There are a few retentionists here who use their real names
How do you know ?? A plausible but fake name is the cleverest form of
alias.
----
Sahan Amarasekera
to email me, remove animal in email address:
sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk
oda...@my-deja.com
sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> Desmond Coughlan wrote:
>
> >Earl Evleth wrote:
> >
> >> >> the vast majority of retentionists post to this newsgroup,
either under a
> >> >> false name ('moniker'), or by masking their name and e-mail
address ?
> >
> >> > I've posted under my real name and email address, with a link to
my
> >> > personal website, since day 1. So what's your point?
> >
> >> He said the "vast majority". There is the idea with some of the
people
> >> who use real names and real e-mail addresses that the people who
don`t
> >> use real names and false e-mail address have some psychological
quirk,
> >> are paranoid.
> >
> >I think that it's called shame, Earl. Let's face it: no retentionist
on
> >this group can really believe for a second, that his or her life
would ever
> >be endangered by an abolitionist, despite what PV implied.
> >
> >There are a few retentionists here who use their real names
>
> How do you know ?? A plausible but fake name is the cleverest form of
> alias.
>
>
"Planet Visitor" is the cleverest of the lot-- that *is* his real
name.
A Planet Visitor
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:39:52 +0100, Earl Evleth <dev...@noos.fr> wrote:
>
> > >> the vast majority of retentionists post to this newsgroup, either under a
> > >> false name ('moniker'), or by masking their name and e-mail address ?
>
> > > I've posted under my real name and email address, with a link to my
> > > personal website, since day 1. So what's your point?
>
> > He said the "vast majority". There is the idea with some of the people
> > who use real names and real e-mail addresses that the people who don`t
> > use real names and false e-mail address have some psychological quirk,
> > are paranoid.
>
> I think that it's called shame, Earl. Let's face it: no retentionist on
> this group can really believe for a second, that his or her life would ever
> be endangered by an abolitionist, despite what PV implied.
>
Of course abolitionists need to beware of firebombs.
> There are a few retentionists here who use their real names, and I salute
> them; they have balls. The rest of them, however, must be feeling what I
> can only term (justifiable) shame at the antics of their country.
>
I feel no shame over my country or my support of the DP. I do feel
shame for those who would try to deny the truth of the words, by
accusations against those who speak the words, rather than the
words themselves. Of course, their tactics are rather transparent:
When words cannot be refuted, find some obscure, and trivial
reason to attack those who speak the words. Those who do so,
reveal their own words lack substance. But perhaps you can elaborate
on the reasons you believe those who post should reveal a name?
Do you think I crave your salute? Do you think I give a damn who and
what you are? If your words are crap, that simply makes you crap,
and claiming that uttering crap and offering your name as some sort
of stink-proofing for your crap, claiming such provides you with balls, is
truly laughable.
PV
Desmond Coughlan
{snip}
> > I think that it's called shame, Earl. Let's face it: no retentionist on
> > this group can really believe for a second, that his or her life would ever
> > be endangered by an abolitionist, despite what PV implied.
> Of course abolitionists need to beware of firebombs.
Yes, or at least one of us did, and despite your rather childish scorn,
PV, you would do well to remember that all of the threats made against
other posters came _only_ from retentionists.
> > There are a few retentionists here who use their real names, and I salute
> > them; they have balls. The rest of them, however, must be feeling what I
> > can only term (justifiable) shame at the antics of their country.
> I feel no shame over my country or my support of the DP.
You ought to.
> I do feel
> shame for those who would try to deny the truth of the words, by
> accusations against those who speak the words, rather than the
> words themselves. Of course, their tactics are rather transparent:
> When words cannot be refuted, find some obscure, and trivial
> reason to attack those who speak the words. Those who do so,
> reveal their own words lack substance. But perhaps you can elaborate
> on the reasons you believe those who post should reveal a name?
> Do you think I crave your salute? Do you think I give a damn who and
> what you are? If your words are crap, that simply makes you crap,
> and claiming that uttering crap and offering your name as some sort
> of stink-proofing for your crap, claiming such provides you with balls, is
> truly laughable.
Hmm ... rather a verbose way of saying, 'I hide behind an alias', PV,
isn't it ?
You still haven't told us why, other than a rather feeble allusion to
Mr Luscombe's rather irritating (but in no way threatening) trolls
directed at you.
--
**********************************************************************
* Desmond Coughlan Network Engineer Forum des Images Paris *
* dcou...@vdp.fr http://www.forumdesimages.net/ (01) 44.76.62.29 *
* PGP Public Key: http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr *
* Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93 *
**********************************************************************
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@lievre.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn97ea3t....@lievre.voute.net...
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:43:57 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> {snip}
>
> > > I think that it's called shame, Earl. Let's face it: no retentionist on
> > > this group can really believe for a second, that his or her life would
ever
> > > be endangered by an abolitionist, despite what PV implied.
>
> > Of course abolitionists need to beware of firebombs.
>
> Yes, or at least one of us did, and despite your rather childish scorn,
> PV, you would do well to remember that all of the threats made against
> other posters came _only_ from retentionists.
>
Since I've never issued a threat of any kind, I fail to see where
you're going with this. Bear in mind that it's you who first began
this thread, heaping your 'childish scorn' on those who prefer
to post anonymously. If you, as an abolitionist, feel you are threatened
by retentionists, you'd have ever right to post anonymously, and
I would never think of being so crass as to claim you need to
provide a name to your words. Quite frankly, I have never asked
anyone, in any newsgroup, to substantiate their words by providing
a real name. It strikes me as really quite ridiculous to do so, and
you now strike me as quite ridiculous to continue these howls
for a name to attack. it's Usenet... accept it.
> > > There are a few retentionists here who use their real names, and I salute
> > > them; they have balls. The rest of them, however, must be feeling what I
> > > can only term (justifiable) shame at the antics of their country.
>
> > I feel no shame over my country or my support of the DP.
>
> You ought to.
>
As you should as well, for many of the words you've said in this
group. Perhaps it's you who SHOULD post anonymously, much
as joe1orbit did. Wasn't he a dedicated abolitionist?
> > I do feel
> > shame for those who would try to deny the truth of the words, by
> > accusations against those who speak the words, rather than the
> > words themselves. Of course, their tactics are rather transparent:
> > When words cannot be refuted, find some obscure, and trivial
> > reason to attack those who speak the words. Those who do so,
> > reveal their own words lack substance. But perhaps you can elaborate
> > on the reasons you believe those who post should reveal a name?
> > Do you think I crave your salute? Do you think I give a damn who and
> > what you are? If your words are crap, that simply makes you crap,
> > and claiming that uttering crap and offering your name as some sort
> > of stink-proofing for your crap, claiming such provides you with balls, is
> > truly laughable.
>
> Hmm ... rather a verbose way of saying, 'I hide behind an alias', PV,
> isn't it ?
>
No, it was a verbose way of my saying that those who feel they need
to see a name attached to a post, regardless how fictitious that name
might truly be, are themselves rather paranoid.
> You still haven't told us why, other than a rather feeble allusion to
> Mr Luscombe's rather irritating (but in no way threatening) trolls
> directed at you.
>
But of course I did. In my very first post to this thread. But I'll
repeat the central reason if you have a short attention span:
"Like Ben has remarked, I separate my personal life from my
thoughts in this newsgroup, and have no desire to commingle
the two." No further reason need exist, and those who would
demand more are emotionally obsessed with me, not me with
them. I'm not obsessed over who you are, so why should you
be obsessed as to who I am? Unless you find that obsessing
over the lack of a name, is easier than refuting the words. In
fact, in every case where it has been claimed that I hide behind
an alias, it was totally obvious that no other response was rational,
thus it was necessary to lash out at something quite immaterial to
the words, as you are now doing. You can dig yourself a hole
as deep as you wish on this one, Desmond... because it's a
no-win argument on your part. Anonymous posting is, always
has been, and always will be, an acceptable form on
non-moderated forums in Usenet, as long as such posting does
not violate other boundaries.
PV
Desmond Coughlan
{snip}
> > > Of course abolitionists need to beware of firebombs.
> > Yes, or at least one of us did, and despite your rather childish scorn,
> > PV, you would do well to remember that all of the threats made against
> > other posters came _only_ from retentionists.
> Since I've never issued a threat of any kind, I fail to see where
> you're going with this.
All threats come from retentionists, PV, but not all retentionists make
threats.
Better now ?
> Bear in mind that it's you who first began
> this thread, heaping your 'childish scorn' on those who prefer
> to post anonymously. If you, as an abolitionist, feel you are threatened
> by retentionists, you'd have ever right to post anonymously, and
> I would never think of being so crass as to claim you need to
> provide a name to your words.
I would not dream of posting anonymously, PV. _I_ have nothing to be
ashamed of.
> Quite frankly, I have never asked
> anyone, in any newsgroup, to substantiate their words by providing
> a real name. It strikes me as really quite ridiculous to do so, and
> you now strike me as quite ridiculous to continue these howls
> for a name to attack. it's Usenet... accept it.
I do not wish to attack anyone's name, PV (besides, you know me: I'll
attack any deathie, whether he has a name or not ... :-)). I was simply
wondering aloud why such a large number of those posters who post
anonymously, belong to the retentionist camp.
{snip}
> > You ought to.
> As you should as well, for many of the words you've said in this
> group. Perhaps it's you who SHOULD post anonymously, much
> as joe1orbit did. Wasn't he a dedicated abolitionist?
As you well know, PV, Joe1Orbit is a retentionist, or rather, an alias of
a regular retentionist who posts to this group.
{snip}
> > You still haven't told us why, other than a rather feeble allusion to
> > Mr Luscombe's rather irritating (but in no way threatening) trolls
> > directed at you.
> But of course I did. In my very first post to this thread. But I'll
> repeat the central reason if you have a short attention span:
> "Like Ben has remarked, I separate my personal life from my
> thoughts in this newsgroup, and have no desire to commingle
> the two." No further reason need exist, and those who would
> demand more are emotionally obsessed with me, not me with
> them. I'm not obsessed over who you are, so why should you
> be obsessed as to who I am? Unless you find that obsessing
> over the lack of a name, is easier than refuting the words. In
> fact, in every case where it has been claimed that I hide behind
> an alias, it was totally obvious that no other response was rational,
> thus it was necessary to lash out at something quite immaterial to
> the words, as you are now doing. You can dig yourself a hole
> as deep as you wish on this one, Desmond... because it's a
> no-win argument on your part. Anonymous posting is, always
> has been, and always will be, an acceptable form on
> non-moderated forums in Usenet, as long as such posting does
> not violate other boundaries.
Very good, PV, now be a good boy and read my original post in this thread. I
am not seeking to obtain anyone's name. I was simply wondering why so many
of you hide your true identities. Much like, say, paedophiles, or ex-Nazis ...
--
Desmond Coughlan des...@coughlan.net
Death Penalty Discussion Group : http://www.egroups.com/group/death-penalty
********
PGP Public Key: http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
MrMateo
des...@coughlan.net wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:43:57 GMT, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> {snip}
>
> > > I think that it's called shame, Earl. Let's face it: no
retentionist on
> > > this group can really believe for a second, that his or her life
would ever
> > > be endangered by an abolitionist, despite what PV implied.
>
> > Of course abolitionists need to beware of firebombs.
>
> Yes, or at least one of us did, and despite your rather childish
scorn,
> PV, you would do well to remember that all of the threats made against
> other posters came _only_ from retentionists.
Sorry, but that is just a lie.
>
> > > There are a few retentionists here who use their real names, and
I salute
> > > them; they have balls. The rest of them, however, must be
feeling what I
> > > can only term (justifiable) shame at the antics of their country.
>
> > I feel no shame over my country or my support of the DP.
>
> You ought to.
Why? Why should he? Why should I? Why should anyone?
>
> > I do feel
> > shame for those who would try to deny the truth of the words, by
> > accusations against those who speak the words, rather than the
> > words themselves. Of course, their tactics are rather transparent:
> > When words cannot be refuted, find some obscure, and trivial
> > reason to attack those who speak the words. Those who do so,
> > reveal their own words lack substance. But perhaps you can
elaborate
> > on the reasons you believe those who post should reveal a name?
> > Do you think I crave your salute? Do you think I give a damn who
and
> > what you are? If your words are crap, that simply makes you crap,
> > and claiming that uttering crap and offering your name as some sort
> > of stink-proofing for your crap, claiming such provides you with
balls, is
> > truly laughable.
>
> Hmm ... rather a verbose way of saying, 'I hide behind an alias', PV,
> isn't it ?
Maybe it is just me, but it sounds more like, "I just don't give
a fuck if you do not approve of the fact I use an alias."
>
> You still haven't told us why, other than a rather feeble allusion to
> Mr Luscombe's rather irritating (but in no way threatening) trolls
> directed at you.
>
> --
> **********************************************************************
> * Desmond Coughlan Network Engineer Forum des Images Paris *
> * dcou...@vdp.fr http://www.forumdesimages.net/ (01) 44.76.62.29 *
> * PGP Public Key: http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr *
> * Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93 *
> **********************************************************************
>
Sahan Amarasekera
[snip]
>> > I feel no shame over my country or my support of the DP.
>>
>> You ought to.
>
> Why? Why should he? Why should I? Why should anyone?
Suppose, just suppose, that someone innocent was StateMurdered in your
state. And then afterwards his innocence was proved. Would you feel
bad ?? Would you even care ?? Have you heard what has been
happening in Illinois ??
And have you thought about the family/friends of StateMurdered people,
innocent or not ?? Do you care about _them_ ?
Or do you just want blood, at any cost ?
----
Sahan Amarasekera
to email me, remove animal in email address:
sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk
>>
A Planet Visitor
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:48:01 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> {snip}
>
> > > > Of course abolitionists need to beware of firebombs.
>
> > > Yes, or at least one of us did, and despite your rather childish scorn,
> > > PV, you would do well to remember that all of the threats made against
> > > other posters came _only_ from retentionists.
>
> > Since I've never issued a threat of any kind, I fail to see where
> > you're going with this.
>
> All threats come from retentionists, PV, but not all retentionists make
> threats.
>
> Better now ?
>
to report such fears to your psychiatrist. Fear of the written
word is certainly some kind of phobia. Let me say, that in the
time I've been here - I may have missed it - but I've never seen
a specific threat to you from any abolitionist. Now you claim to
have received such threats through your e-mail address, but
that only reinforces my belief that it's rather stupid to provide
such information, in a public forum such as this. Speaking of
Keith Luscombe... don't you believe that if he had my e-mail
address, I would be bombarded with his hate mail? Perhaps
you might provide me with a specific example of where you or
another abolitionist was threatened with physical violence, in
more than obviously sarcastic words.
> > Bear in mind that it's you who first began
> > this thread, heaping your 'childish scorn' on those who prefer
> > to post anonymously. If you, as an abolitionist, feel you are threatened
> > by retentionists, you'd have ever right to post anonymously, and
> > I would never think of being so crass as to claim you need to
> > provide a name to your words.
>
> I would not dream of posting anonymously, PV. _I_ have nothing to be
> ashamed of.
>
Would that be your claim that "The dead cannot be honored?"
You may not be ashamed of that statement, but you very well
should be.
> > Quite frankly, I have never asked
> > anyone, in any newsgroup, to substantiate their words by providing
> > a real name. It strikes me as really quite ridiculous to do so, and
> > you now strike me as quite ridiculous to continue these howls
> > for a name to attack. it's Usenet... accept it.
>
> I do not wish to attack anyone's name, PV (besides, you know me: I'll
> attack any deathie, whether he has a name or not ... :-)). I was simply
> wondering aloud why such a large number of those posters who post
> anonymously, belong to the retentionist camp.
>
I'll answer for you, Desmond. You were wondering aloud because
you needed a new issue to divert from the fact that your 'principled
abolitionist,' cause is wearing, very, very, thin.
> {snip}
>
> > > You ought to.
>
> > As you should as well, for many of the words you've said in this
> > group. Perhaps it's you who SHOULD post anonymously, much
> > as joe1orbit did. Wasn't he a dedicated abolitionist?
>
> As you well know, PV, Joe1Orbit is a retentionist, or rather, an alias of
> a regular retentionist who posts to this group.
>
Oh.. oh. Another denial. I know that abolitionists that don't fit
your mold are not true abolitionists in your mind... but believe me,
everyone who has ever read even one of joe1orbit's previous
posts recognizes him/her as a true-blue abolitionist. But one that
all abolitionists are ashamed of, thus feel they need to distance
themselves from his posts. Let's take a look at a short clip from
one of his part posts in deja:
"The one and only Ted Bundy, amerikkka's pioneering
serial killer, who truly BROUGHT the serial murder
phenomenon into the consciousness of amerikkkan
culture, made today's "Today In History" AP wire.
Hard to believe that ELEVEN long years have passed
by, but it WAS 11 years ago today, January 24, 1989,
that Ted was legally MURDERED by you diseased
hypocrites, in the state of Florida.
It IS only fitting that this perverse act be noted as one
of the most historically famous acts to have ever occured,
in the history of the modern world, on the date of January
24. Oh Ted, you have been ROBBED of so much pleasure.
You could have been with us this entire time, savoring your
life accomplishments and status of being amerikkka's
pre-eminent serial killer. You were a VICTIMIZED creation
of your society, and it chose to MURDER you, denying you
the victim status that you deserved. For that fact alone,
the ENTIRE society of amerikkka deserves to be
ANNIHILATED and wiped out."
That sound like a retentionist to you?
Pardon me, but your neurosis is much more transparent than
you would have us believe. As long as we're wondering, perhaps
you can explain why you see it as an issue, when certainly
larger problems are being discussed. Let me tell you what I'm
simply wondering. I wondering if you're afraid of words from
me, specifically, because I choose to remain anonymous?
PV
that_frog_...@my-deja.com
Coughlan) wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:43:57 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com>
wrote:
>
>{snip}
>
>> > I think that it's called shame, Earl. Let's face it: no
retentionist on
>> > this group can really believe for a second, that his or her life
would ever
>> > be endangered by an abolitionist, despite what PV implied.
>
>> Of course abolitionists need to beware of firebombs.
>
>Yes, or at least one of us did, and despite your rather childish scorn,
>PV, you would do well to remember that all of the threats made against
>other posters came _only_ from retentionists.
>
Desi, when you were in school, were you the kid everyone picked on?
Isn't it funny how some things never change?
MrMateo
Whoa. I thought putting the name and address of your employer in
here was going over the line. Now you have given those who would do
such a thing justification. Very. Bad. Move.
> --
> Desmond Coughlan des...@coughlan.net
> Death Penalty Discussion Group : http://www.egroups.com/group/death-
penalty
> ********
> PGP Public Key: http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
> Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>
MrMateo
sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:40:26 GMT, MrMateo <hou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >> > I feel no shame over my country or my support of the DP.
> >>
> >> You ought to.
> >
> > Why? Why should he? Why should I? Why should anyone?
>
> Suppose, just suppose, that someone innocent was StateMurdered in your
> state. And then afterwards his innocence was proved.
Considering that no innocent person has been executed under the
auspices of the death penalty since 1900, that would be very hard to do.
Would you feel
> bad ?? Would you even care ?? Have you heard what has been
> happening in Illinois ??
Yes, I had heard what was happening in Illinois. I also
understand that because of the long appeals process, these people were
found before their execution.
>
> And have you thought about the family/friends of StateMurdered people,
> innocent or not ?? Do you care about _them_ ?
Let me take you back to something I had said in response to the
very same thing you just said here:
But you are forgetting something: The condemned man did
something to another; specifically, take away their life. The condemned
man broke the law. His victim did not. Why should I or anyone else give
a murderer a reprieve for the sake of his family, when he brought this
on himself?
I am reminded of the days before the execution of Robert Alton
Harris in California's gas chamber. Members of the Catholic clergy and
Harris' family had called a press conference in a plea to the then
governor Pete Wilson to spare his life. Why? Because, in the words of
one: "We love him and we don't want him to die." All I could think of
was Harris had chased and shot down two boys just so he could use their
car for an armed robbery. It would have been real nice if their
families had been given the same opportunity that Harris' family had.
>
> Or do you just want blood, at any cost ?
Earl Evleth
--
----------
Dans l'article <958472$g2q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, MrMateo <hou...@hotmail.com>
a écrit :
> es, I had heard what was happening in Illinois. I also
> understand that because of the long appeals process, these people were
> found before their execution.
All of them?
Would you bet your life on that? Or just somebody else`s?
Earl
Ron Bargoot
>
> How do you know ?? A plausible but fake name is the cleverest form of
> alias.
>
> ----
> Sahan Amarasekera
>
Like your name?
Geez, some of us are already public figures, like myself. Too late to
hide now.
Ron Bargoot
http://ronbargoot.com
George
that even more of them are actually innocent.
MrMateo
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote:
>
> --
>
> ----------
> Dans l'article <958472$g2q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, MrMateo
<hou...@hotmail.com>
> a écrit :
>
> > es, I had heard what was happening in Illinois. I also
> > understand that because of the long appeals process, these people
were
> > found before their execution.
>
> All of them?
Could you prove otherwise? Nope. So stop being so rhetorical.
>
> Would you bet your life on that? Or just somebody else`s?
>
> Earl
>
Earl Evleth
--
----------
Dans l'article <959d1p$gt3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, MrMateo <hou...@hotmail.com>
a écrit :
>> All of them?
>
> Could you prove otherwise? Nope. So stop being so rhetorical.
It is not just me who is pointing out the logic of the situation.
Too many people have been saved from execution just days before
scheduled for the logical person not to conclude some innocent have
been executed. You hide behind the fact the the legal system is
not set up to handle reversing of the machinery of death.
Have you read, for instance, "Actual Innocence" by Scheck, Neufeld and
Dwyer? How many retentionists on the NG have. Some retentionists have
and Goerge Will is intellectually honest about the problem.
You, sir, are not. But I will give you a chance and here is his article once
more.`
NOTE what Will says
"One inescapable inference from these numbers is that some of the 620
persons executed were innocent."
Do you see that, sir, inescapable?
Why are you dodging, don`t have the courage to change your opinion when
necessary? Shame on you.
George Will changed.
Earl
***
DNA , the Death Penalty And Horrifying Mistakes I
By George F. Will
WASHINGTON- Don Śt you worry about it," said the Oklahoma prosecutor to the
defense lawyer. "Weąre gonna needle your client. You know, lethal injection,
the needle. We're going to needle Robert."
Oklahoma almost did. Robert Miller spent nine years on death row, during six
of which the state had DNA test results proving that his sperm was not that
of the man who raped and killed the 92-year-old woman. The prosecutor said
the tests only proved that another man had been with Mr. Miller during the
crime Finally, the weight of scientific evidence got Mr. Miller released and
another man indicted.
You could fill a book with such hair-curling true stories of blighted lives
and justice traduced. Three authors have filled one.
It should change the argument about capital punishment and other aspects of
U.S. criminal justice. Conservatives, especially, should draw this lesson
from the book: Capital punishment is a government program, so skepticism is
in order.
Horror, too, is a reasonable response to what Barry Scheck, Pete Neufeld and
Jim Dwyer demonstrate in "Actual Innocence: Five Days to Execution and Other
Dispatches From the Wrongly Convicted " You will not soon read a more
frightening book It is a catalog of appalling miscarriages of justice, some
of them nearly lethal. Their cumulative weight compels the conclusion that
many innocent people are in prison and some innocent people have been
executed.
Mr Scheck and Mr. Neufeld (both members of 0. J. Simpsonąs "dream team" of
defense lawyers) founded the probono Innocence Project at the Benjamin N
Cardozo School of Law in New York to aid persons who convincingly claim to
have been wrongly convicted. Mr. Dwyer, winner of two Pulitzer Prizes, is
currently a columnist for the New York Daily News. | Their book is a
heartbreaking | and infuriating compendium of | stones of lives ruined by: |
€ Mistaken identifications by eyewitnesses or victims' which contributed to
84 percent of the convictions overturned by the Innocence Project's DNA
exonerations.
€ Criminal investigations, especially of the most heinous crimes, that
become " echo chambers" in which, because of the normal craving for
retribution, the perceptions of prosecutors and jurors are shaped by what
they want to be true.
€ The sinister culture of jailhouse snitches, who earn reduced sentences by
fabricating "admissions" by fellow inmates to unsolved crimes.
€ Incompetent defense representation.
The list of ways that the criminal justice system misfires could be
extended, but some numbers tell the most serious story: In the 24 years
since the resumption of executions under Supreme Court guidelines, about 620
have occurred, but 87 condemned persons‹one for every seven executed‹had
their convictions vacated by exonerating evidence. In eight of these cases,
and in many more exonerations not involving death row, DNA evidence was
conclusive.
One inescapable inference from these numbers is that some of the 620 persons
executed were innocent. Which is why, after the exoneration of 13 prisoners
on death row in Illinois since 1987, Governor George Ryan, a Republican, has
imposed a moratorium on executions.
Two powerful arguments for capital punishment are that its deterrent effect
saves lives and it enhances society's valuation of life by expressing
proportionate anger at murder. But that valuation is lowered by careless or
corrupt administration of capital punishment, which "Actual Innocence''
powerfully suggests is intolerably common.
Washington Post Writers Group.
St.George
here.
At one end is me, using an alias, but everyone knows my name, the town where
I live, and if anyone had the will, using Deja and a telephone directory,
they could have my address within half an hour.
At the other end are those such as PV, who wish total anonymity, even down
to not providing a first name.
Just thought I'd point it out.
BTW, PV, I know you don't want to be bombarded by 'Canvasback', but how
about setting up some Deja email account or similar, and putting that as
your reply-to?
Check it every week or so, and simply ignore anything not from an a.a.d-p
name you want to talk to. That way, it gives nice people like me or John a
way to contact you privately should we wish.
This is exactly what I do, and it works well.
St.George
"MrMateo" <hou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:958472$g2q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<snip>
> Considering that no innocent person has been executed under the
> auspices of the death penalty since 1900
ROTFL! Nice one, Matt!
John Rennie
"St.George" <st_g...@NOSPAMnetmatters.co.uk> wrote in message
news:95a52f$hpa$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
I noted the change to 1900 - he's learning from Richard and Sharpe. Still
leaves out Sacco and Vanzetti tho'. Hardly a person who has studied their
case believes they were guilty.
Sahan Amarasekera
<ronald....@tufts.edu> wrote:
>Sahan Amarasekera wrote:
>
>>
>> How do you know ?? A plausible but fake name is the cleverest form of
>> alias.
>>
>> ----
>> Sahan Amarasekera
>>
>Like your name?
>
>Geez, some of us are already public figures, like myself. Too late to
>hide now.
And how do we **know** you really are the world-famous Ron Bargoot (I
have never heard of you, BTW, but I'll take your word for it).
----
Sahan Amarasekera
to email me, remove animal in email address:
sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk
>
>Ron Bargoot
>http://ronbargoot.com
Sahan Amarasekera
>In article <9594i3$2jgb$1...@news4.isdnet.net>,
> "Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote:
>>
>> --
>>
>> ----------
>> Dans l'article <958472$g2q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, MrMateo
><hou...@hotmail.com>
>> a écrit :
>>
>> > es, I had heard what was happening in Illinois. I also
>> > understand that because of the long appeals process, these people
>were
>> > found before their execution.
>>
>> All of them?
>
> Could you prove otherwise? Nope. So stop being so rhetorical.
Has it even occured to you that there IS NO FUCKING INCENTIVE for the
State to prove that they murdered someone innocent ??
What can one single family do ?? They don't usually have the
resources of the State.
Come to think of it there IS NO FUCKING INCENTIVE for PEOPLE LIKE YOU
to prove that someone innocent has been StateMurdered. Because if it
is found out, you might lose your precious little DP.
----
Sahan Amarasekera
to email me, remove animal in email address:
sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>>
Sahan Amarasekera
<Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
And the Rosenbergs.
Guilty or not, they should not have been murdered. At least for the
sake of their two young children.
Sahan Amarasekera
[snip]
>> And have you thought about the family/friends of StateMurdered people,
>> innocent or not ?? Do you care about _them_ ?
>
> Let me take you back to something I had said in response to the
>very same thing you just said here:
>
> But you are forgetting something: The condemned man did
>something to another; specifically, take away their life. The condemned
>man broke the law. His victim did not. Why should I or anyone else give
>a murderer a reprieve for the sake of his family, when he brought this
>on himself?
Because his family and friends do not deserve to suffer. (????!!!????)
More below.
> I am reminded of the days before the execution of Robert Alton
>Harris in California's gas chamber. Members of the Catholic clergy and
>Harris' family had called a press conference in a plea to the then
>governor Pete Wilson to spare his life. Why? Because, in the words of
>one: "We love him and we don't want him to die." All I could think of
>was Harris had chased and shot down two boys just so he could use their
>car for an armed robbery. It would have been real nice if their
>families had been given the same opportunity that Harris' family had.
What's done is done. The boys' family unfortunately didn't have that
chance. The boys can't be brought back. But why ruin the lifes of
another set of family and friends ?
The murder of Robert Alton Harris could have been prevented. It was
as premeditated and drawn out as is possible. There were ample
chances to think, and not go through with it. But in spite of this,
California chose to ruin the lives of Harris friends and family.
Pete Wilson is a fucked-up piece of dogshit. No, I take that back -
it is an insult to dogshit.
Sahan Amarasekera
<Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
And the Rosenbergs.
Guilty or not, they should not have been murdered. At least for the
sake of their two young children.
----
A Planet Visitor
"Sahan Amarasekera" <sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h7qh7tol6kqg1485v...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 23:15:29 -0000, "John Rennie"
> <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"St.George" <st_g...@NOSPAMnetmatters.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:95a52f$hpa$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >>
> >> "MrMateo" <hou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:958472$g2q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > Considering that no innocent person has been executed under the
> >> > auspices of the death penalty since 1900
> >>
> >>
> >> ROTFL! Nice one, Matt!
> >
> >I noted the change to 1900 - he's learning from Richard and Sharpe. Still
> >leaves out Sacco and Vanzetti tho'. Hardly a person who has studied their
> >case believes they were guilty.
>
> And the Rosenbergs.
> Guilty or not, they should not have been murdered. At least for the
> sake of their two young children.
>
'Murdered.' What a jerk!!!
PV
MrMateo
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote:
>
> --
>
> ----------
> Dans l'article <959d1p$gt3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, MrMateo
<hou...@hotmail.com>
> a écrit :
>
> >> All of them?
> >
> > Could you prove otherwise? Nope. So stop being so rhetorical.
>
> It is not just me who is pointing out the logic of the situation.
> Too many people have been saved from execution just days before
> scheduled for the logical person not to conclude some innocent have
> been executed.
And yet, there is no evidence that someone who was factually
innocent has been executed under the auspices of the death penalty
since 1900.
You hide behind the fact the the legal system is
> not set up to handle reversing of the machinery of death.
What excrement. Ever heard of something called the appeals
process?
>
> Have you read, for instance, "Actual Innocence" by Scheck, Neufeld and
> Dwyer? How many retentionists on the NG have. Some retentionists have
> and Goerge Will is intellectually honest about the problem.
>
> You, sir, are not. But I will give you a chance and here is his
article once
> more.`
>
> NOTE what Will says
>
> "One inescapable inference from these numbers is that some of the 620
> persons executed were innocent."
>
> Do you see that, sir, inescapable?
>
> Why are you dodging, don`t have the courage to change your opinion
when
> necessary? Shame on you.
Shame on me? Where does this 620 number come from? What are their
names? Under what circumstances were they charged and convicted of
murder? What irrefutable evidence exists that makes these people
factually innocent?
Do you have that information? Does this book have it? I will bet
you everything I own the 620 number is bogus.
And I will tell you what: I will locate this book, and I will
read it. I will then provide verbatim instances where the authors were
being disingenuous with the facts regarding that 620 number.
And it will not be me feeling the shame.
MrMateo
sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:04:16 GMT, MrMateo <hou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <9594i3$2jgb$1...@news4.isdnet.net>,
> > "Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> Dans l'article <958472$g2q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, MrMateo
> ><hou...@hotmail.com>
> >> a écrit :
> >>
> >> > es, I had heard what was happening in Illinois. I also
> >> > understand that because of the long appeals process, these people
> >were
> >> > found before their execution.
> >>
> >> All of them?
> >
> > Could you prove otherwise? Nope. So stop being so rhetorical.
>
> Has it even occured to you that there IS NO FUCKING INCENTIVE for the
> State to prove that they murdered someone innocent ??
Do you know why? Because it is not the state's job. The job of the
state is to represent the people in criminal trials, and that means
prosecute.
>
> What can one single family do ?? They don't usually have the
> resources of the State.
>
> Come to think of it there IS NO FUCKING INCENTIVE for PEOPLE LIKE YOU
> to prove that someone innocent has been StateMurdered. Because if it
> is found out, you might lose your precious little DP.
If I believe there is someone on death row that is factually
innocent, you can bet I would not keep my mouth shut and see this
person go to the gallows. The problem is, I have not seen anything at
all to show someone who was factually innocent was executed under the
auspices of the death penalty. Certainly not since 1900.
MrMateo
sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 23:15:29 -0000, "John Rennie"
> <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"St.George" <st_g...@NOSPAMnetmatters.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:95a52f$hpa$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >>
> >> "MrMateo" <hou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:958472$g2q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > Considering that no innocent person has been executed under
the
> >> > auspices of the death penalty since 1900
> >>
> >>
> >> ROTFL! Nice one, Matt!
> >
> >I noted the change to 1900 - he's learning from Richard and
Sharpe. Still
> >leaves out Sacco and Vanzetti tho'. Hardly a person who has
studied their
> >case believes they were guilty.
>
> And the Rosenbergs.
> Guilty or not, they should not have been murdered.
ROTFLMAO!
Ask your grandparents what happened in the UK in the 1950's when
someone was convicted of the same crimes the Rosenbergs were.
"Guilty or not." Thanks for the laugh, Sahan.
At least for the
> sake of their two young children.
>
> ----
> Sahan Amarasekera
>
> to email me, remove animal in email address:
> sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk
>
>
MrMateo
sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 04:27:20 GMT, MrMateo <hou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> And have you thought about the family/friends of StateMurdered
people,
> >> innocent or not ?? Do you care about _them_ ?
> >
> > Let me take you back to something I had said in response to the
> >very same thing you just said here:
> >
> > But you are forgetting something: The condemned man did
> >something to another; specifically, take away their life. The
condemned
> >man broke the law. His victim did not. Why should I or anyone else
give
> >a murderer a reprieve for the sake of his family, when he brought
this
> >on himself?
>
> Because his family and friends do not deserve to suffer. (????!!!????)
> More below.
And what about the friends and family of the VICTIM?!? Do you
think they are not suffering?
>
> > I am reminded of the days before the execution of Robert
Alton
> >Harris in California's gas chamber. Members of the Catholic clergy
and
> >Harris' family had called a press conference in a plea to the then
> >governor Pete Wilson to spare his life. Why? Because, in the words of
> >one: "We love him and we don't want him to die." All I could think of
> >was Harris had chased and shot down two boys just so he could use
their
> >car for an armed robbery. It would have been real nice if their
> >families had been given the same opportunity that Harris' family had.
>
> What's done is done. The boys' family unfortunately didn't have that
> chance. The boys can't be brought back. But why ruin the lifes of
> another set of family and friends ?
>
> The murder of Robert Alton Harris could have been prevented.
Jesus H. Mahogany! Will you look at what the hell you just wrote?
You say the "murder" of Robert Alton Harris could have been prevented,
and yet as far as the two boys are concerned, "What's done is done?" Do
you think you could make anymore clear you just don't care about crime
victims or their families?
It was
> as premeditated and drawn out as is possible. There were ample
> chances to think, and not go through with it. But in spite of this,
> California chose to ruin the lives of Harris friends and family.
I do not believe I have EVER seen someone get something so bass
ackwards in my life!
Matti Kaikkonen
> And the Rosenbergs.
> Guilty or not, they should not have been murdered. At least for the
> sake of their two young children.
Btw, are there any other cases in modern US peace-time history, where people
are condemnde to die for non-murder crimes? I remember having read
somewhere that the judge in the case hinted Rosenbergs beeing indirectly
responsible for starting the Korean war. If Rosenbergs truly transported
information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union, I would consider it
more like trading illegal weapons. Has anyone else ever been excecuted in
USA for selling weapons illegally?
Desmond Coughlan
> > And the Rosenbergs.
> > Guilty or not, they should not have been murdered. At least for the
> > sake of their two young children.
> Btw, are there any other cases in modern US peace-time history, where people
> are condemnde to die for non-murder crimes?
Yes, regrettably, it is only relatively recently that executions for rape
(where the victim was _not_ murdered) were ruled unconstitutional by the
United States Supreme Court (1950s, I believe, perhaps a little later).
{snip}
--
Desmond Coughlan des...@coughlan.net
Death Penalty Discussion Group : http://www.egroups.com/group/death-penalty
********
PGP Public Key: http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
Desmond Coughlan
> > Considering that no innocent person has been executed under the
> > auspices of the death penalty since 1900
> ROTFL! Nice one, Matt!
Bwaaaahahaha !!!!!
Next, it'll be 'post-Furman', and then, 'In the 21st century' ...
--
Desmond Coughlan des...@coughlan.net
Death Penalty Discussion Group : http://www.egroups.com/group/death-penalty
********
PGP Public Key: http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
Desmond Coughlan
{snip}
> > And the Rosenbergs.
> > Guilty or not, they should not have been murdered. At least for the
> > sake of their two young children.
> 'Murdered.'
Yes, PV. Murdered. Murdered within the law, but murdered nonetheless.
> What a jerk!!!
Yes, you can be. Occasionally.
--
Desmond Coughlan des...@coughlan.net
Death Penalty Discussion Group : http://www.egroups.com/group/death-penalty
********
PGP Public Key: http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
Donna Evleth
--
----------
Dans l'article <slrn97icdk....@gateway.voute.net>,
des...@gateway.voute.net (Desmond Coughlan) a écrit :
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:48:23 +0200, Matti Kaikkonen
> <matti.k...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>> > And the Rosenbergs.
>> > Guilty or not, they should not have been murdered. At least for the
>> > sake of their two young children.
>
>> Btw, are there any other cases in modern US peace-time history, where people
>> are condemnde to die for non-murder crimes?
>
> Yes, regrettably, it is only relatively recently that executions for rape
> (where the victim was _not_ murdered) were ruled unconstitutional by the
> United States Supreme Court (1950s, I believe, perhaps a little later).
>
> {snip}
Carryl Chessman was executed for rape in California. I believe the year was
1960. I have no exact date.
Donna Evleth
Yonaton M Rosenzweig
Distribution:
Matti Kaikkonen (matti.k...@helsinki.fi) wrote:
: more like trading illegal weapons. Has anyone else ever been excecuted in
: USA for selling weapons illegally?
Of course, we're such a just country, focussed on integrity and high
minded universal principle. Why look, when arms were solf to Iran, hmmm?
remeber what we did to Reagan ... oh no no, we pinned it ont olie
north ... oh wait ... right
no ... nothing happens to right wingers when they sell weapons illegally.
and nothing happends to them when they cover it up either.
yoni
--
--
Pembroke College
Oxford Univeristy
OX1 1DW
UK
People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't
believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the
people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they
can't find them, they make them.
--George Bernard Shaw
Either you think -- or else others have to think for you and take power
from you, pervert and discipline your natural tastes, civilize and
sterilize you.
--F. Scott Fitzgerald
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is
happiness.
--George Orwell
Sahan Amarasekera
>In article <mnhh7tghgbiiope3f...@4ax.com>,
> sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 23:15:29 -0000, "John Rennie"
>> <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"St.George" <st_g...@NOSPAMnetmatters.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:95a52f$hpa$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> >>
>> >> "MrMateo" <hou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:958472$g2q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> > Considering that no innocent person has been executed under
>the
>> >> > auspices of the death penalty since 1900
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ROTFL! Nice one, Matt!
>> >
>> >I noted the change to 1900 - he's learning from Richard and
>Sharpe. Still
>> >leaves out Sacco and Vanzetti tho'. Hardly a person who has
>studied their
>> >case believes they were guilty.
>>
>> And the Rosenbergs.
>> Guilty or not, they should not have been murdered.
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> Ask your grandparents what happened in the UK in the 1950's when
>someone was convicted of the same crimes the Rosenbergs were.
Point taken. I always say that the UK was wrong when it murdered
people. I've never denied that. But I take your answer as an
implicit admission that in this case, the State shouldn't have done
the murder. I was not trying to say that the UK was civilised in that
period.
Sahan Amarasekera
<matti.k...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>Sahan Amarasekera <sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:mnhh7tghgbiiope3f...@4ax.com...
>
>> And the Rosenbergs.
>> Guilty or not, they should not have been murdered. At least for the
>> sake of their two young children.
>
>Btw, are there any other cases in modern US peace-time history, where people
>are condemnde to die for non-murder crimes?
****YES****. Remember the Red-Light Bandit. Murdered by California
in 1960 under Section 209. His real name was Caryl Chessman.
See http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics3/chessman/index.htm
***Allegedly*** (see below):
He was a serial rapist, but because he also kidnapped and robbed (one
of ?) his victims, he was murdered, in the gas chamber. Note that HE
DID NOT MURDER ANYONE.
Apparently, there are three types of kidnapping described in Section
209. The third type of kidnaping was where there had been three
criminal elements present: kidnaping, robbery, and bodily harm to the
victim. That type of kidnaping allowed for one of two possible
sentences: life in prison without the possibility of parole -- or
death in the gas chamber.
On the morning of the murder, his lawyers were pleading with the judge
to allow a stay of murder, as they has uncovered new evidence that
could have proved his innocence. The judge agreed, and told his
secretary to ring up the prison where the murder was to be done. But
the secretary at first *****DIALLED THE WRONG NUMBER***** , and by the
time she got through, the pills of death had already dropped, and the
process was unreversible.
----
Sahan Amarasekera
to email me, remove animal in email address:
sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk
>I remember having read
Sahan Amarasekera
wrote:
>Carryl Chessman was executed for rape in California. I believe the year was
>1960. I have no exact date.
He was pronounced dead at 10:12 AM on Monday, May 3, 1960.
I believe the reason for his murder was that there were 3 things
present:
bodily harm, kidnapping and robbery.
Note that his lawyers had new evidence that could have proved his
innocence. The judge agreed to a stay of murder, but when his
secretary dialled the prison, she first dialled a wrong number, and
when she eventually got through, the pills had already dropped in the
gas chamber, and Chessman could not be saved.
The full story is at
http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics3/chessman/index.htm
----
Sahan Amarasekera
to email me, remove animal in email address:
sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk
>Donna Evleth
Sahan Amarasekera
Coughlan) wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 04:55:38 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>{snip}
>
>> > And the Rosenbergs.
>> > Guilty or not, they should not have been murdered. At least for the
>> > sake of their two young children.
>
>> 'Murdered.'
>
>Yes, PV. Murdered. Murdered within the law, but murdered nonetheless.
>
>> What a jerk!!!
>
>Yes, you can be. Occasionally.
Thank you, Desmond.
Ron Bargoot
> And how do we **know** you really are the world-famous Ron Bargoot (I
> have never heard of you, BTW, but I'll take your word for it).
>
World famous? I like the sound of that.
Not for nothing, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to pretend they are
me. A lot of baggage goes along on that trip.
Ron Bargoot
http://ronbargoot.com
Sahan Amarasekera
>In article <mseh7to27cg6482n1...@4ax.com>,
> sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:04:16 GMT, MrMateo <hou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <9594i3$2jgb$1...@news4.isdnet.net>,
>> > "Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> ----------
>> >> Dans l'article <958472$g2q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, MrMateo
>> ><hou...@hotmail.com>
>> >> a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> > es, I had heard what was happening in Illinois. I also
>> >> > understand that because of the long appeals process, these people
>> >were
>> >> > found before their execution.
>> >>
>> >> All of them?
>> >
>> > Could you prove otherwise? Nope. So stop being so rhetorical.
>>
>> Has it even occured to you that there IS NO FUCKING INCENTIVE for the
>> State to prove that they murdered someone innocent ??
>
> Do you know why? Because it is not the state's job. The job of the
>state is to represent the people in criminal trials, and that means
>prosecute.
If a prosecutor afterwards realized they made a mistake, and they
knew, or suspected that someone innocent had been murdered, do you
think they would shout about it ?? Or would they keep it to
themselves ?? Answer me that.
>> What can one single family do ?? They don't usually have the
>> resources of the State.
>>
>> Come to think of it there IS NO FUCKING INCENTIVE for PEOPLE LIKE YOU
>> to prove that someone innocent has been StateMurdered. Because if it
>> is found out, you might lose your precious little DP.
>
> If I believe there is someone on death row that is factually
>innocent, you can bet I would not keep my mouth shut and see this
>person go to the gallows.
OK, I'm sorry, I take my last paragraph back.
>The problem is, I have not seen anything at
>all to show someone who was factually innocent was executed under the
>auspices of the death penalty.
But, again, have you done extensive investigations into it ?? And
before you say it, no, I haven't either. But there is a book out that
Evleth mentioned, and the author's HAVE done this research, and it's
findings are VERY worrying. You only have to look at Illinois. I
believe there was a case in which one person was proved innocent by a
group of uni students and their professor. What if they had not done
this ??
Peter Morris
> > Have you read, for instance, "Actual Innocence" by Scheck, Neufeld and
> > Dwyer? How many retentionists on the NG have. Some retentionists have
> > and Goerge Will is intellectually honest about the problem.
> >
> > You, sir, are not. But I will give you a chance and here is his
> article once
> > more.`
> >
> > NOTE what Will says
> >
> > "One inescapable inference from these numbers is that some of the 620
> > persons executed were innocent."
> >
> > Do you see that, sir, inescapable?
> >
> > Why are you dodging, don`t have the courage to change your opinion
> when
> > necessary? Shame on you.
>
> Shame on me? Where does this 620 number come from? What are their
> names? Under what circumstances were they charged and convicted of
> murder? What irrefutable evidence exists that makes these people
> factually innocent?
>
> Do you have that information? Does this book have it? I will bet
> you everything I own the 620 number is bogus.
>
> And I will tell you what: I will locate this book, and I will
> read it. I will then provide verbatim instances where the authors were
> being disingenuous with the facts regarding that 620 number.
>
> And it will not be me feeling the shame.
Is that bet open to everyone, or only to Earl? It is extremely
easy to show that the 620 figure is correct. I would be perfectly
happy to releive you of everything you own. If I were to post
proving you wrong, which would be easy, would you accept
it like a man, or would you bleat helplessly and say "my challenge
was only to Earl, so it doesn't count"
______________________
/_____________________(_)
| _____________________ email to
| | |__________________(_) Peter_Morris_1
| |/____________________ at Hotmail dot com
|_____________________(_)
Peter Morris
"Donna Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:95bff0$16vk$1...@news4.isdnet.net...
>
> --
>
>
> ----------
> Dans l'article <slrn97icdk....@gateway.voute.net>,
> des...@gateway.voute.net (Desmond Coughlan) a écrit :
>
>
> > On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:48:23 +0200, Matti Kaikkonen
> > <matti.k...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
> >
> >> > And the Rosenbergs.
> >> > Guilty or not, they should not have been murdered. At least for the
> >> > sake of their two young children.
> >
> >> Btw, are there any other cases in modern US peace-time history, where
people
> >> are condemnde to die for non-murder crimes?
> >
> > Yes, regrettably, it is only relatively recently that executions for
rape
> > (where the victim was _not_ murdered) were ruled unconstitutional by the
> > United States Supreme Court (1950s, I believe, perhaps a little later).
> >
> > {snip}
>
> Carryl Chessman was executed for rape in California. I believe the year
was
> 1960. I have no exact date.
To be precise, he was executed for kidnapping. The death penalty for
rape had already been abolished. The charge was completely artificial.
Whatever else he had done, he certainly did not abduct anybody. The
basis of the charge was that he had attacked a woman in a car, so it
should be treated *as if* he had abducted her. There is no doubt that
he was innocent of the specific crime he was executed for.
--
A Planet Visitor
"Matti Kaikkonen" <matti.k...@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:95b4cg$krv$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
awaiting execution on DR, for the crime of rape, received commuted
sentences of one type or another. And even 4 were awaiting execution
for armed robbery, and commuted. Any examples pre-Furman are
hardly relevant to the DP existing in the U.S. today. If we go back
to those days, then why not a few years further back, and we all
realize what happened in those days. We need to live in the present.
This does not mean we have to forget the past, but simply recognize
the mistakes made in the past by EVERY country, and hope that we
have moved past that point. Nevertheless, it will always be my belief
that there are some murderers who not just need, but DEMAND our
administering of the DP, if only to preserve our own self-respect, our
own concern for the rest of humanity, our own morality, our own
understanding of what 'human rights' actually implies, and our own
safety. Notwithstanding those who feel murderers somehow require
our protection, rather than our righteousness.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@gateway.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn97icsl....@gateway.voute.net...
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 04:55:38 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> {snip}
>
> > > And the Rosenbergs.
> > > Guilty or not, they should not have been murdered. At least for the
> > > sake of their two young children.
>
> > 'Murdered.'
>
> Yes, PV. Murdered. Murdered within the law, but murdered nonetheless.
>
> > What a jerk!!!
>
> Yes, you can be. Occasionally.
>
Pot...
Kettle...
Black...
But in this particular case, as in the cases where you claimed the
Balkans were not in Europe, and 'the dead cannot be honored,'
you are totally and abysmally wrong. Unless one is a complete
and total nitwit, state-sponsored execution, whether right or wrong,
is not murder. I know it, you know it, dipshit Sahan knows it,
and every reader here knows it. Your continued disbelief in
what is clearly defined in irrefutable documentation, doesn't make
me a jerk... it makes you one.
PV
> Desmond Coughlan des...@coughlan.net
George
the FBI laboratory. That's very worrying stuff.
St.George
> "Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote:
> >
> > --
> >
> > ----------
> > Dans l'article <959d1p$gt3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, MrMateo
> <hou...@hotmail.com>
> > a écrit :
> >
> > >> All of them?
> > >
> > > Could you prove otherwise? Nope. So stop being so rhetorical.
> >
> > It is not just me who is pointing out the logic of the situation.
> > Too many people have been saved from execution just days before
> > scheduled for the logical person not to conclude some innocent have
> > been executed.
>
> And yet, there is no evidence that someone who was factually
> innocent has been executed under the auspices of the death penalty
> since 1900.
Wrong again, Matthew - Timothy Evans in 1950.
Looks like you better amend your claim again!
St.George
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
news:95br9l$9hg$2...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
Sorry, Peter, the challenge was only open to Mrs Edna Morris of Auckland,
New Zealand, and expired on 1st April 1974.
Matti Kaikkonen
A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:ibfe6.51373$Tl3.9...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> Any examples pre-Furman are
> hardly relevant to the DP existing in the U.S. today. If we go back
> to those days, then why not a few years further back, and we all
> realize what happened in those days. We need to live in the present.
> This does not mean we have to forget the past, but simply recognize
> the mistakes made in the past by EVERY country, and hope that we
> have moved past that point.
OK, mistakes happen on every human field, including the legal profession.
But is it enough to "hope" that mistakes are not done nowadays when applying
the death penalty and that the state does not actually eliminate innocent
people (even though not on purpose)? After all, if several people on the
death row are found innocent, there is a high probability that there have
been innocent people among the excecuted, too. Isn't that a high price to
pay for "preserving some-one's self-respect"?
> Nevertheless, it will always be my belief
> that there are some murderers who not just need, but DEMAND our
> administering of the DP, if only to preserve our own self-respect, our
> own concern for the rest of humanity, our own morality, our own
> understanding of what 'human rights' actually implies, and our own
> safety. Notwithstanding those who feel murderers somehow require
> our protection, rather than our righteousness.
Yes, one can see that in Europe. Most societies here are in a deep moral
crisis and most europeans live in constant danger due to the lack of the
death penalty. And what is most unfortunate, the residents themselves do
not notice it.
John Rennie
"Matti Kaikkonen" <matti.k...@helsinki.fi> wrote in message >
Yes, one can see that in Europe. Most societies here are in a deep moral
> crisis and most europeans live in constant danger due to the lack of the
> death penalty. And what is most unfortunate, the residents themselves do
> not notice it.
LOL
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:95cooi$upc$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
___|___
|
^
PV
Dave Proctor
> And the Rosenbergs.
> Guilty or not, they should not have been murdered. At least for the
> sake of their two young children.
They weren't murdered, they were executed.
Dave
Sahan Amarasekera
And their two young children ?? Left without both parents ??
----
Sahan Amarasekera
to email me, remove animal in email address:
sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk
>
>Dave
>
MrMateo
Dave Proctor
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 04:39:15 GMT, "Dave Proctor"
> <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >"Sahan Amarasekera" <sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> >message news:h7qh7tol6kqg1485v...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> And the Rosenbergs.
> >> Guilty or not, they should not have been murdered. At least for the
> >> sake of their two young children.
> >
> >They weren't murdered, they were executed.
>
> And their two young children ?? Left without both parents ??
Much the same as a recent road accident here, where a car deliberately tried
to cross a rail crossing in front of a train travelling at 160 km/h, in
spite of the fact that the lights were flashing, etc. They chose to do what
they did, they left their families to survive without them. You do the
crime, you do the time. How would the two young children have coped with
both parents in prison? They would still have had to cope via other means of
support.
Dave
Matti Kaikkonen
Dave Proctor <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:tmse6.94562$lV5.2...@news2.giganews.com...
> Much the same as a recent road accident here, where a car deliberately
tried
> to cross a rail crossing in front of a train travelling at 160 km/h, in
> spite of the fact that the lights were flashing, etc. They chose to do
what
> they did, they left their families to survive without them. You do the
> crime, you do the time. How would the two young children have coped with
> both parents in prison? They would still have had to cope via other means
of
> support.
Sorry, but I don't think material support is the issue here. I have the
impression that the Rosenberg sons have coped materially quite adequately.
However, I am quite sure that emotions are quite different when visiting
one's parents in prison or their graves on a graveyard.
Btw, would the driver in the accident you mentioned have received the death
penalty, in case he had survived the crash?
Dave Proctor
Not at all - I was merely using that as an example of how there are all
sorts of situations which people put themselves into which result in the
loss of their lives - support of off-spring is something they do not
neccessarily consider when they place themself in that situation. They have
to accept the consequences of their actions.
By all means, place any relevant mitigation circumstances before the body
making such a decision, but by saying "Oh, don't execute them, they have two
small children" you will do nothing more than harden the hearts of those who
have to make such a decision, who are deliberately chosen because their
hearts are already harder then most.
Dave
Matti Kaikkonen
> Not at all - I was merely using that as an example of how there are all
> sorts of situations which people put themselves into which result in the
> loss of their lives - support of off-spring is something they do not
> neccessarily consider when they place themself in that situation. They
have
> to accept the consequences of their actions.
> By all means, place any relevant mitigation circumstances before the body
> making such a decision, but by saying "Oh, don't execute them, they have
two
> small children" you will do nothing more than harden the hearts of those
who
> have to make such a decision, who are deliberately chosen because their
> hearts are already harder then most.
I found an interesting page
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USArosenberg.htm where the son of
Rosenbergs speaks out:
"The FBI came to my parents very soon after the arrest and said,
essentially, talk or die. They said think about what will happen to your
children if you don't talk - and if you talk, Julius, you'll have a prison
term and Ethel, you'll be released and you can take care of the kids. Well,
they offered the same deal to David and Ruth Greenglass, who also had two
kids, and they took the deal. So Greenglass got a prison sentence and Ruth
was never indicted and never spent a day in jail even though she swore she
helped steal the secret of the atomic bomb. Quite a contrast with my
mother."
Of course, both these homepages and the son of Rosenbergs have an agenda,
but the text above illustrates IMO the arbitrary nature of the death
penalty. Rosenbergs are the only spies that have been excecuted in modern
time USA. Did they do the most harm?
Dying for your crimes is one thing. But is it proper to use the death
penalty to loosen up someone's tongue? I think it does not fit very well to
a society putting special emphasis on human rights, IMHO. I think even
today the same lever is used in many plea bargains.
S Moir
> crisis and most europeans live in constant danger due to the lack of the
> death penalty. And what is most unfortunate, the residents themselves do
> not notice it.
>
>
continent in together.
Europe is quite a big area. I trust that you have lived in most of the
European countries, since you speak so confidently about their moral crisis
and constant danger.
If not speak for your own country- not mine or anyone else's.
In my life I have only once felt that I was in danger once, despite the fact
that I regularly travel about on my own, very often at night, to very
isolated places due to my work.
Your last sentence really made me laugh. How do you know this- are you
clairvoyant?
In reality (and in the UK- I would never be arrogant enough to talk of other
countries without personal experience) there have been lots of surveys done
regarding crime. The upshot of these surveys is that an individual's
perception and fear of crime is greater than the actual risk.
That reduces your grand and sweeping statement to complete bullshit.*
Shona
*Pardon the language Dave's relatives- swearing isn't clever, but I've been
up all night again.
Donna Evleth
--
----------
Dans l'article <95clvf$e9q$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>, "Matti Kaikkonen"
<matti.k...@helsinki.fi> a écrit :
>
>
>> Nevertheless, it will always be my belief
>> that there are some murderers who not just need, but DEMAND our
>> administering of the DP, if only to preserve our own self-respect, our
>> own concern for the rest of humanity, our own morality, our own
>> understanding of what 'human rights' actually implies, and our own
>> safety. Notwithstanding those who feel murderers somehow require
>> our protection, rather than our righteousness.
>
> Yes, one can see that in Europe. Most societies here are in a deep moral
> crisis and most europeans live in constant danger due to the lack of the
> death penalty. And what is most unfortunate, the residents themselves do
> not notice it.
Crime is up here in France, and I noticed it myself this very day. While
photocopying in a library, I inadvertently left my photocopy card in the
machine. When I returned for it, I found it but noticed that someone else
had used it to the tune of 21 copies! This was a loss to me of 10 and 1/2
francs! I feel sure that the presence of the death penalty in our country
would have deterred this particularly cruel and heinous crime.
Donna Evleth
>
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
The longest journey begins with a single small step.
PV
Sahan Amarasekera
<dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>"Sahan Amarasekera" <sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
>message news:ojfk7tooaep4k2qaq...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 04:39:15 GMT, "Dave Proctor"
>> <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >"Sahan Amarasekera" <sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
>> >message news:h7qh7tol6kqg1485v...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> And the Rosenbergs.
>> >> Guilty or not, they should not have been murdered. At least for the
>> >> sake of their two young children.
>> >
>> >They weren't murdered, they were executed.
>>
>> And their two young children ?? Left without both parents ??
>
>Much the same as a recent road accident here, where a car deliberately tried
>to cross a rail crossing in front of a train travelling at 160 km/h, in
>spite of the fact that the lights were flashing, etc. They chose to do what
>they did, they left their families to survive without them. You do the
>crime, you do the time. How would the two young children have coped with
>both parents in prison?
Ooooh, do you think that maybe, just maybe, it might have been a
little less distressing for the kids ?? At least they'd have been able
to visit.
Why can't you just admit it: in this case, the state was WRONG. PV
has implicitly conceded this because he keeps going on about the fact
it was pre-Fruman, and is not relevant to current discussions.
----
Sahan Amarasekera
to email me, remove animal in email address:
sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk
> They would still have had to cope via other means of
>support.
>
>Dave
>
A Planet Visitor
You are so full of it. I do not concede anything. Especially with you.
The Point I make is that the Rosenberg trial, conviction, sentence and
execution have NOTHING to do with the present day use of the DP
in the U.S. Furman changed all that! You might as well claim that
Uruguay winning the World Cup in 1950 (check it out) has some
meaning in our use of the DP today. It does not, and neither does
the Rosenberg case, thus it is totally immaterial to any dialog as to
present day use of the DP. As is the Spanish Inquisition, and
burning witches at the stake, which seems to obsess the minds
of some abolitionists. My only concern with your comments
in this case, was the fact that you distort a FACT, not opinion. You
call it MURDER. It is not, nor was it then, nor will it be when both
you and I have left this universe. You cannot make a lie become
a truth, because of your opinion. A lie is a lie, and the truth is the
truth. And state-sponsored execution is by DEFINITION, not by
opinion, NOT MURDER, because it is LEGAL, regardless of yours
or mine or anyone's OPINION as to its morality. Grow up, and pay
attention.
PV
> ----
> Sahan Amarasekera
St.George
Look it up on any search engine - if you can't find a reference this way
I'll find one for you.
Suffice to say that your claim that "...there is no evidence that someone
who was factually
innocent has been executed under the auspices of the death penalty
since 1900..." is totally wrong.
John Rennie
"St.George" <st_g...@NOSPAMnetmatters.co.uk> wrote in message
news:95fa0v$mnh$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Sahan Amarasekera
<Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>
>He might as well look up Derek Bentley at the same time.
Now **that** was a bad one.
St.George
<snip>
> > Look it up on any search engine - if you can't find a reference this way
> > I'll find one for you.
> >
> > Suffice to say that your claim that "...there is no evidence that
someone
> > who was factually
> > innocent has been executed under the auspices of the death penalty
> > since 1900..." is totally wrong.
> >
> >
> He might as well look up Derek Bentley at the same time.
Bentley is still 'guilty', isn't he, John - his pardon being limited to
sentence only?
MrMateo
You are talking about someone in the UK, not the US. You are
being disingenuous again.
>
> Suffice to say that your claim that "...there is no evidence that
someone
> who was factually
> innocent has been executed under the auspices of the death penalty
> since 1900..." is totally wrong.
>
>
Dave Proctor
> Why can't you just admit it: in this case, the state was WRONG. PV
> has implicitly conceded this because he keeps going on about the fact
> it was pre-Fruman, and is not relevant to current discussions.
Nothing of the sort - you can not, and should not, take factors such as
children into account when determining sentence, apart from deciding between
non-custodial sentences or short term custody. As it stood, they would have
received life, so the welfare of the children would have been exactly the
same.
Dave
Matti Kaikkonen
S Moir <smsc...@cableinet.co.uk> kirjoitti
viestissä:95ducu$h7uvi$1...@ID-50327.news.dfncis.de...
> That reduces your grand and sweeping statement to complete bullshit.*
I agree with you completely. I guess nobody understands sarcasm today,
unless smileys are included.
Sahan Amarasekera
What, you mean that if they had got life, the kids wouldn't have been
able to visit them in prison ? I am not on about material welfare, I
am on about the emotions of the kids. Please answer my question.
----
Sahan Amarasekera
to email me, remove animal in email address:
sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk
>
>Dave
>
John Rennie
Hey now. I got your point immediately. BTW it wasn't sarcasm you
employed, it was irony.
Dave Proctor
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 06:31:39 GMT, "Dave Proctor"
> <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >"Sahan Amarasekera" <sahan...@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> >message news:1g0m7t881elrkn020...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Why can't you just admit it: in this case, the state was WRONG. PV
> >> has implicitly conceded this because he keeps going on about the fact
> >> it was pre-Fruman, and is not relevant to current discussions.
> >
> >Nothing of the sort - you can not, and should not, take factors such as
> >children into account when determining sentence, apart from deciding
between
> >non-custodial sentences or short term custody. As it stood, they would
have
> >received life, so the welfare of the children would have been exactly the
> >same.
>
> What, you mean that if they had got life, the kids wouldn't have been
> able to visit them in prison ? I am not on about material welfare, I
> am on about the emotions of the kids. Please answer my question.
I did - the kids emotions should not be a factor in sentencing.
Dave
S Moir
"Matti Kaikkonen" <matti.k...@helsinki.fi> wrote in message > S Moir
<smsc...@cableinet.co.uk> kirjoitti
>
> > That reduces your grand and sweeping statement to complete bullshit.*
>
> I agree with you completely. I guess nobody understands sarcasm today,
> unless smileys are included.
>
>
Sorry, that's what I get for posting before having a sleep I suppose.
Shona
.
St.George
> In article <95fa0v$mnh$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
<snip>
> > Look it up on any search engine - if you can't find a reference this
> way
> > I'll find one for you.
>
> You are talking about someone in the UK, not the US. You are
> being disingenuous again.
Que?
If you had meant to exclude the UK, you should have said so in your
statement.